essay wrote: Well, once again, I'm going to try to answer several posts at once - as I have said before, I lack your verbosity. I think I also said, early in this exchange, that I acknowledge that any of the many hundreds of Bible errors, inconsistancies and contradictions can be explained away or rationalized if no limits are set on how far-fetched or bizzare the explanation can be.
To put it another way, it isn't difficult to hammer a square peg into a round hole if one's hammer is big and heavy enough, and if the final condition of both the peg and the hole is not important.

Oh, you're plenty verbose, Susan, don't kid yourself. And a bit of a wit, and more than slightly intrigued with playing the devil's advocate. You seem to enjoy throwing out assertions, even the same assertions over and over, no matter what is said in reply. Never surrender a premise, no matter whether it is ill founded or unsupported or disproven. That is very much too bad, and rather sad, because you have some premises and prejudices that really need to be surrendered. As to my own verbosity, I agree, I am verbose. Sometimes though it seems necessary, though it may not be effective. While it takes only a sentence to ask a loaded question (ie, "When did you stop beating your wife?") it may take paragraphs to give an adequate response.

As to your list of "hundreds of Bible errors," did you know that what can be explained must not be an error, a contradiction, or an inconsistency? The fact that something needs explaining or investigation doesn't automatically make it an error or a contradiction. The fact that something doesn't fit your own predetermined world view doesn't make it an inconsistency either.

essay wrote: Beginning with Eccl 1:5, I have searched in vain for any support for your contention that the verbs involved do not imply motion:
'It isn't really a motion verb. That's an accomodation to English..'

It seems Glen found support in a very ordinary but highly respected resource, but you reject that as "missing the point." It wasn't Glen who missed the point. But you are apparently certain in your own mind, because you have accepted a particular school of thinking, that you know what the Bible writers believed, no matter what they wrote.

Your paraphrase, essay, regarding "the verbs" (pasted above) is not quite what I said. I mentioned each verb specifically, and the portion actually quoted above was in particular reference to the Hebrew verb in this passage for our English word "rises" as in "sun rises." It is in no way a synonym for the word "rises" and would not be used in reference to anything rising or going up, except (in English) the sun. A lexicon would have been a good resource to search, including Strong's that Glen referenced, or the Brown, Driver, Briggs that I also consulted, or a consideration of every time the verb is used in the Hebrew Bible, but here's one from the Theological Word Book of The Old Testament that I hadn't looked at before:
zarah -- means "to rise, come up," and is used in three ways. 1) It refers to the breaking forth of the symptoms of leprosy (sara'at q.v.; 2 Chron 26:19). 2) It is used of the sun as appearing, without specific reference to the diffusion of its light (Eccl 1:5; John 4:5), (and thus it is a reference to the time of day), or else as [radiating] its light in the morning (2 Sam 23:4). 3) It is also used in a figurative sense to speak of salvation, light, glory resulting from God's coming into a man's life (Ps 112:4; Isa 58:10; 60:1). The thought is that as the sun appears in the morning without man's effort, but nevertheless floods his surroundings with light and dispels the darkness, so the Lord is sovereign in the bestowal of his salvation, which brings light and glory. The term is used twice of God himself appearing to bring salvation (Isa 60:2) and righteousness to his people (Mal 4:2 [H* 3.20]). In both cases there is a prophecy concerning the coming of Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord. (from Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Copyright (c) 1980 by The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago. All rights reserved. Used by permission.)
That meaning, "to rise, come up" is not a description of motion or direction, it does not stand alone as a synonym for our word "rise" at all, but describes the appearing of the sun, or of leprosy, or of the light of God. Hebrew has other verbs that correspond to the English word "rise" in the sense of moving in an upward direction, and they are not used of the sun, nor is this word used of things moving in an upward direction. I see that you don't like it, and it doesn't support your preconceived determination about the ignorant and superstitious ancients, but it is the English (and most modern languages, I suppose) that makes a specific reference to direction and motion in its description of sun "rise", not the old Hebrew, not in Ecclesiastes 1:5. Modern (or postmodern) attitudes about this stem, not from the Bible or ancient Hebrew, but from the European middle ages.

essay wrote: Every English-language translation I have found says 'rises' and 'sets' or 'goes up' and 'goes down'. The translators, I think, deserve some credit for erudition, and they could just as easily have used other verbs if others were more appropriate. The 1912 German Luther Bible says, 'Die Sonne GEHT auf und GEHT unter und L?UFT an ihren Ort, dass sie wieder daselbst aufGEHE.' (my emphasis).

That's right, in English about the only way to say it is "sun rise." What other expression do we have? The job of translators is to convey meaning, and what Solomon described is what we mean by "sunrise" and "sunset." So this is a science error in the Bible? Who is forcing square pegs into round holes? We could discuss communication, translation, perception, apparent motion, relativity, or theories of solar movement, but what we have here is just the way we say things to clearly convey meaning, consistent with experience. Solomon did not write an explanation of solar movement, nor did he err or contradict reality. He conveyed a message, in language that was not erroneous, and your paste from the NET touches on the message he was conveying. By the way, it may seem nitpicky, but I think the footnotes quoted below from your paste are more exposition than etymology. But aside from that, it sounds like Solomon had an insight into the second law of thermodynamics. Oops, sorry, I was picturing pegs and holes and big hammers.

essay wrote: The online New English Translation (NET - and not to be confused with the New English Bible), a wonderful source of Biblical etymology, says (cut and pasted):
1:5 The sun rises19 and the sun sets,20
and to the place to which it hastens,21 from there it rises22 again.23
.....and here is their etymology:
19tn The participle j^r}oz ("to rise") emphasizes continual, durative, uninterrupted action (present universal use of participle): the sun is continually rising (and continually setting) day after day.
20tn Heb "the sun goes." The participle aB ("to go") emphasizes continual, durative, uninterrupted action (present universal use of participle): the sun is continually rising and continually setting day after day. The repetition of aB in 1:4-5 creates a comparison between the relative futility of all human endeavor ("a generation comes and a generation goes" [aB]) with the relative futility of the action of the sun ("the sun rises and the sun goes" [i.e., "sets," aB]).
21tn Heb "hastens" or "pants." The verb [av has a three-fold range of meanings: (1) "to gasp; to pant," (2) "to pant after; to long for," and (3) "to hasten; to hurry" (KBL3 937; BDB 983). The related Aramaic root [wv means "to be thirsty; to be parched." The Hebrew verb is used of "gasping" for breath, like a woman in the travail of childbirth (Isa 42:14); "panting" with eagerness or desire (Job 5:5; 7:2; 36:20; Ps 119:131; Jer 2:24) or "panting" with fatigue (Jer 14:6; Eccl 1:5). Here [av personifies the sun, panting with fatigue, as it hastens to its destination (BDB 983 [1]). The participle form depicts continual, uninterrupted, durative action (present universal use). Like the sun, man-for all his efforts-never really changes anything; all he accomplishes in his toil is to wear himself out.
22tn The verb jrz is repeated in this verse to emphasize that the sun is locked into a never changing, ever repeating monotonous cycle: rising, setting, rising, setting. In 1:5a the perfect tense focuses on the starting point of the cycle (present definite use of perfect): "the sun rises" (at a definite point in time). However, in 1:5b the participle emphasizes the continual, uninterrupted cycle of the sunrise (present universal use of participle): "there it continually rises again."
23tn The word "again" does not appear in Hebrew, but is supplied in the translation for clarity and smoothness
--end of excerpt--
I think you would agree that the earth as the immovable center of creation was accepted at the time Eccl was written. You seem to saying (and once again, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth), 'The author, whether by divine inspiration or otherwise, knew what no one else knew, that the earth revolves around the sun, but he stated this scientific fact metaphorically for poetic purposes.' Caf, are you serious? Even the online 'Blue Letter Bible', fiercely Fundamentalist, fails to support you here in its extensive notations on the verse.
Anyone who would like to look at the NET Bible for themselves can find it here: NET Bible Online

I won't completely agree. We would have to argue from ignorance and assumption. It is likely (though not certain) that Solomon's people generally thought the universe was geocentric. Strangely enough, while "everyone" today "knows" the universe is not geocentric, that is still not an established fact, and cannot be established as fact. Sorry, there I go forcing the pegs into the wrong holes again. That has nothing to do with Biblical interpretation, but the accepted model of the solar system (and the cosmos) was a choice, not a mandate, and a few astronomers still play with the idea. A geocentric universe would in some ways be simpler, in some ways more complex than the generally accepted model, but it is philosophically completely unpalatable to most modern thinkers. Much that we "know" as fact, is much less certain than we typically suppose. There is no particular debate on this subject, but there is nothing observable or testable that excludes a geocentric universe, no matter how Solomon or anyone else viewed it. But back to Biblical statements in general, I certainly believe that God revealed things to his prophets by inspiration that were not known to the common man by observation. I also believe that the Holy Spirit guided the writing of scripture, and the selection and preservation of scripture for the use of God's people. The Bible is not merely a human product with human understandings and misuderstandings. None of that excludes poetic expression or metaphor. Nor is it necessary for truth to stated in scientific terms for it to be consistent with what is knowable and testable. I have no quarrel with Solomon saying "sunrise" in much the same way we say it today. I was surprised to find that he actually did not, despite the fact this is the best way to say it in our language.

I have mentioned before regarding scripture that there are several kinds of literature included. Ecclesiastes is not the same as Genesis. Ecclesiastes purports to be a book of tests, experiences and observations that lead to a conclusion. Genesis purports to be (and is treated by all other Biblical writers as) history of real events and real people in real space and time. Despite the fact that Ecclesiastes is observational and poetic, it still does not make the absurd errors of fact found in the myths of all other peoples, despite your determination to hold the book to an untenable mode of expression.

essay wrote: Regarding 'chewing of the cud, here is what the NET says about the Hebrew language used:
3tn Heb "bringer up of the cud" (a few of the early versions have the copula "and" written, but it does not appear in the MT). The following verses make it clear that both dividing the hoof and chewing the cud were required; one would not be enough to make the animal suitable for eating without the other.
Caf, the hare bringeth up naught. You are, of course, correct, that some species eat their droppings (this is, I believe, called 'coprophagy', for those of you who like to learn a new word each day), but that is nothing like 'bringing up the cud' - the digestive systems are completely different.

Like so many who have adopted a humanistic slash-and-burn approach to the Bible, you have very little apparent respect for its ancient readers, let alone its authors. You suppose that some cleric could put it over on the farmers in their own area of specialty. In these kinds of subject areas, the actual observations of "primitive" humans amaze me. I live in the Kern River Valley of California. The native Americans here learned to use acorns as a staple. How did they figure out the process of grinding the kernals and washing the tanin out of the meal so that it would be safe to eat? There is nothing obvious or intuitive about it. Do you really think that people who butchered cattle and other ruminants didn't know that the digestive systems of bunnies were different? I grew up with raising calves and goats and rabbits and chickens for food. We knew the difference between the innards of the these animals first hand. What sort of dummies do you suppose the old Israelites were, that they didn't know rabbits and cows had different digestive systems? You say that reingesting undigested fecal matter, as rabbits do, is "nothing like 'bringing up the cud'" but the Brittanica said, as I copied and pasted, this is "a practice considered comparable to cud-chewing in ruminants." Now, the Brittanica is not a Zondervan publication, nor "Fundamentalist." Neither is there good reason to suppose the people who received the commandments were as ignorant and unobservant as you suppose.

As suggested in the footnote of the NET above, the verb connected to "cud" in the verses in Leviticus 11:1-7, rendered something like "chews" in most translations, is a motion verb (wonder why they never used it for the sun going up?), found many times in the Old Testament, and often translated to go up, or something similar. We could notice in the usage of this verb that "go up" is a very common expression in the Hebrew for a variety of actions. It is found twice in 2 Kings 12:17 (Then Hazael king of Aram went up and fought against Gath and captured it, and Hazael set his face to go up to Jerusalem. NASU), describing the actions and intentions of Hazael. Does this describe direction, as Hazael went south from Damascus to Gath, or elevation as he went east from Gath to Jerusalem, or is it a figure of speech? If undigested food goes from the stomach to the mouth, is it "going up" if it goes by way of the throat, but not if it goes by way of the intestines? Why do I need to be so verbose over a contrived issue? The text of Leviticus, and the reiteration in Deuteronomy, plainly define the parameters of the animals under consideration. They didn't need to fit a European or American taxonomy, the defining characteristics needed to be clearly described so that the Israelites would know what to eat, and what not to eat. They were so described, accurately and adequately, both by Hebrew (not English) terms and by examples for clarity.

essay wrote: My understanding regarding the camel, from non-Biblical sources, is that the foot or hoof, when put down with the beast's weight on it, spreads out and a fold of skin obscures the cleft, but it is there just the same.

Speaking of missing the point... The foot of the camel is distinctly different than that of the cow (or pig). It is not completely divided, by the definition in the Biblical text, and the definition was clear to the recipients to whom it was given in their own language. But essay, or whatever modern interpreter comes along, and says, "no, the camel fits what I mean by a cloven hoof. If the Hebrew word meant something different, something narrower than my modern meaning, then the Bible is wrong." It isn't the Bible that is wrong, it is an attitude of modern arrogance that is wrong. The pad on the camel's foot, and perhaps other differences, moved it out of the defined parameters of the Hebrew "split hoof, completely divided." And modern taxonomies with their own categories of classification, often based on arbitrary assumptions, or dubious connections, do not falsify the system and categories recognized by the ancients. The emphatic "split hoof completely divided" in Lev. 11:3 and 11:7 excluded the camel. Again, no cleric with a belly ache sitting in Jerusalem was going to put one over on the folks who worked with camels all the time, the everyday people who observed these rules. As the text at the Smithsonian's website puts it, "Ingenious anatomical adaptations help the dromedary survive in hot, arid conditions, including its cloven hoof, which has a cushioned pad underneath that spreads with each step, offering good traction in sandy conditions." That pad may not exclude the camel from the Smithsonian's idea of a "cloven foot" but it did exclude it from the Hebrew definition of a "split hoof, completely divided." A very different foot than that of the cow or sheep.

essay wrote: When you say 'Moses made no scientific error here', you are of course, correct, since the book dates to the Exile, centuries after Moses.

And I said it just for you, Susan. But of course, Moses did say it, 800 years before the exile, when he was responsible for delivering the Law to Israel. There is not a shred of evidence to the contrary anywhere, but an abundance of evidence in favor of that keeping that ancient conclusion. Nevertheless, just for the sake of terminology, when Jesus cites Leviticus, he cites Moses (Matthew 8:4, Lev. 14:3-4) and when he cites Deuteronomy, he cites Moses (Matthew 19:7, Deuteronomy 24:1-4). Jesus was content to cite Leviticus and Deuteronomy as "Moses" and so am I. Why aren't you?

essay wrote: I never cease to be amazed how Fundamentalists, my brethren and sistern in Christ, fail to 'get it'. Maybe it's because their separation from the 'mother religion' is greater that mine. The Jews had it right all along: Ya got the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.

Mother religion? I think I understand what you mean by that, but it is an absurd position to be in, for one who claims to be concerned about truth and scientific evidence and errors. Just how do you define "separation" in its varying degrees? The Jews were to be a people of the book, keeping God's written word, and whoever follows that revealed word must be in proximity of the "mother" Paul spoke of in Gal. 4:26. I'm quite willing to be separated from anything that doesn't come from God, any human tradition, any evolved authority or hierarchy, and any religious system that is not consistent with the Bible. If you want to "get it" yourself, step away from your own traditions of humanistic denial of the Biblical text, and see what God has actually said. As Paul observed, "He is not far from any one of us" and if we will find him if we search (Acts 17:27).

essay wrote: The Law tells you what to do to be an observant Jew. Don't eat hares, they're FILTHY! You can get all kinds of diseases just from handling them! Whether they literally 'bring up' the cud is unimportant. That the human author thought they did has nothing to do with the prohibition.

The Law of course does far more than that, providing information for Israel about who they were, where they came from, and to whom they were obligated. Fallacies make a lousy basis for law, but I won't add more verbage to the fact that the text in question is not fallacious. In reference to your own perception, in fact, hares are not "FILTHY" and that isn't the message of the Law. You can get all kinds of diseases from any animals, including ruminants, if you don't handle them properly. Washing and cooking deal with most of the potential problems. The ancient Israelites could see the people around them eating all sorts of animals, including dogs and pigs and camels, that they didn't eat. There was no obvious health reason or cultural reason for the exclusion, except that God said so, because he wanted his chosen nation to be different, to think of themselves as different, and set apart. Several years ago a physician wrote a book, None of These Diseases in which he set forth a case for the dietary prohibitions of the Law, and the rules for washing and sanitation, as being effective measures for good health. He intended it as a testimony to divine wisdom. While the premise is not completely wrong, it is far from an adequate explanation of the purpose of the ceremonial restrictions. These were fundamentally religious distinctions, and not an ancient health fad. Nor do economic arguments about beasts of burden make sense. If hares were excluded for being "FILTHY" and dangerous even to "handle," why were camels and horses excluded, when they would be handled in terms of commerce as beasts of burden? That surely wasn't about disease. Nor was it about labor, because while horses and camels were excluded as food, oxen were not. The patterns of exclusion were patterns, but they were to be accepted as divine in nature, trusting God and obeying him, not for health reasons or economic reasons or any other cultural reasons invented by some man.

essay wrote: The Writings, on the other hand, are a combination of theology, history, inspiration, and story telling, factual and fictitious. No claim of 'literal truth' was ever made here until Fundamentalist Christians began putting their own 'spin' on the Bible.

Now essay, "No claim of 'literal truth'"? Until "Fundamentalist Christians began putting their own 'spin"..."? We do know that Ruth is in the Writings, don't we? The woman in the story, mentioned by name in the book of Ruth and in Matthew 1:5? I know, you don't like Matthew's abbreviated genealogy, maybe that's because he was one of those "Fundamentalist Christians" (by your apparent definition) who thought there was literal truth in the Writings, that Ruth really married Boaz. Much of Job is dramatic poetry, and the book is in the Writings, and yet James thought he was a real man, with real patience, and a real outcome (James 5:11). James must have been another of those "Fundamentalists." And those Psalms, which the Jews categorized as "Writings," there are pesky quotations from those scattered all through the New Testament, aren't there? Especially that one Jesus quoted to the Pharisees, Psalm 110:1, the one Jesus attributed to David, and asked how the Messiah could be the Son of David, and have David call him Lord (Luke 20:42, Matthew 22:41-46). Jesus seemed to think there was something literal there, that David had an insight, and indeed, so did the Pharisees and the crowd. There was some claim of "literal truth" in that passage of poetry. Maybe Jesus was another one of those you'd define as "Fundamentalist", and the Pharisees too, I guess. And Jesus certainly included the Psalms with the Law and the Prophets in Luke 24:44 when he said "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." (from New International Version) While the style of Biblical literature varies, while poetry differs from narrative, and the scriptures should be handled correctly (2 Timothy 2:15, 3:16-17), the sections of the book were not to distinguish fiction from truth or authoritative from inspirational. Tell me again, just when did that "spin" of claiming "literal truth" in the Writings get started? It seems to have been there in New Testament times.

essay wrote: Now, I have checked out your link concerning the Quirinian Census, and while it is not uninteresting, what is much more interesting is to go to the organization's home site and click on 'Our Beliefs'. There we find the following:
1. The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the written Word of God, our absolute authority, inerrant in the autographs.
2. There is only one God, eternally existing in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who created all things by His power. He is a spirit, infinite, eternal and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
3. Jesus Christ is God the Son, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. He became man through a virginal conception and birth, lived a life of perfect righteousness, performed miracles, and died on the cross as a substitute to pay for the sins of all who trust in Him. He rose physically from the dead, ascended to heaven, and will one day return to rescue His own and put an end to sin.
4. All people are sinners as a result of Adam's fall and their own disobedience. Only through repentance from sin and dependence on Christ's work alone may they return to a right relationship with God. Those who return will one day be delivered from sin and death to spend an eternity of blessing enjoying and serving God. Those who continue in sin will one day face God's judgment, after which they will forever experience His wrath.
---end of excerpt--
Obviously this organization, or you, or I, have a right to believe whatever we wish, as we live in countries with (more or less) complete religious freedom. I think even you, though, would have to admit that this statement, 'up front', certainly compromises the objectivity of anything else on the website. It is a classic example of 'starting with the conclusion' and ignoring, or explaining away all the facts to the contrary.

Someone did miss the point. Willfully, I guess. I'm sorry, I made a point of saying that I didn't in any way investigate the organization that hosted the website, because the whole point was to answer the question, which you pretended was a quesiotn seeking information ("I don't know, I'm just asking" was what you said). If you wanted information, it is there on the link, and their sources are cited, but you would prefer to throw out the baby with the bath water. That link covers the facts in an adequate way. If you don't like those sources, I can cite others, but you actually may not be interested in the facts, I think. You have a foregone conclusion from something you once read about Luke getting it wrong (he didn't) and you don't want to consider the implications of another possibility, that Luke was right and the historical-critical approach is just plain wrong. Hostility toward the information posted at that link, which is avaiable in a plethora of other resources (on the web and in print) and deflection into a diatribe against the statement of faith of the host organization is contrary to reason, particularly the venom you read into it. You seem to say (repeatedly) "I will only consider evidence or arguments if the source supports the conclusions I have already drawn."

I do not subscribe to that organization's statement of beliefs. They say, immediately after the portion you quoted, that statement is "to be understood within the framework of the New Hampshire, Philadelphia or Westminster confessions of faith." I subscribe to none of those either, but will mention that historically, the Westminster Confession is a document from 1646 expressing beliefs of people belonging to the Reformed tradition, which includes the Presyterians and Baptists. The New Hampshire Confession of 1833 was an American Baptist restatement of the same general ideas, as is also true of the 1742 Philadephia Confession. The organization you repudiate with such vehemence that you have little interest in factual evidence if they post it is apparently Baptist in character. I wasn't pitching for the host, and made a point of saying so at the outset.

essay wrote: Factual errors in the Bible? Don't wanna hear about it!

I think that probably is true, you don't want to hear about it. Your mind is made up, don't bother with the facts. Oh, you meant those other guys? No, I guess you meant me.

essay wrote: No Trinity in Judaism? So what, they're all goin' to hell anyway!

The Jewish concept of God isn't really at issue, and what really matters is coming to terms with God's concept of God. You can find it in the Bible. It might be helpful to read Paul's assessment of the Jewish situation, apart from Christ, in Romans 9-11 or Galatians 3-4. Jews or Gentiles, the need is the same, the answer is the same. My concern is for Biblical truth and consistency with it. The Bible offers no support to antisemitism, quite the opposite, but it offers no hope of coming to God apart from Christ.

essay wrote: Jesus Christ 'co-equal' with his Dad, even tho' He specifically denied this? Go 'way kid, ya bother me!

You are attacking a straw man here, since none of the statements in the confession above have any bearing on Living Waters, or even on the information at the link about Quirinius. Poisoning the well. But what baffles me, given your haphazard view of Biblical truth, how do you claim to have a clue to what Jesus did or did not deny? In context, do you know what Jesus said in terms of his existence as a man in the flesh and then again, whether it was always true or specifically true when he was a man? Is it the same when he has received the glory he had with the Father at the beginning (John 18)? What did Paul mean when he talked about being equal with God in Philippians 2:6? Perhaps people shouldn't construct (or ridicule) statements of faith that over simplify what is complex and mysterious, and never simply distilled into catch phrases in scripture.

essay wrote: Rose physically from the Dead, even tho' no one recognized Him and He walked through walls?

Essay, your prejudices are showing here, and it isn't pretty, merely petty. You offer a gross mis-statement in summary of what the gospels and Paul and Acts say about the resurrection appearances of Jesus. I'm sure you don't believe Jesus walked on the water before his crucifixion either, but the miracle in the one case is no more astonishing than that in the other. The tomb was empty. The New Testament leaves no doubt the disciples believed, to the point of death, that Jesus physically rose from the dead. I could get verbose about this too, but what's the point? But I'm back again to asking, if you don't believe what the scriptures say about Jesus, why would you care what the gospels say he did or didn't deny, and why do you impose some (any) artificial (arbitrary) personal value on the Bible, but only the value you choose to endow it with yourself, when you view it as fiction and distortion? Why argue scripture with the Baptists if you reject its truth? Why care how people interpret it?

essay wrote: Will return 'one day'? He said it would be within a few generations at most. That was nearly 2000 years ago.

No, he didn't say "it would be within a few generations at most." But I'll let Peter's answer suffice, because it is sufficient for me: 3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days some people will appear whose lives are controlled by their own lusts. They will make fun of you 4 and will ask, "He promised to come, didn't he? Where is he? Our fathers have already died, but everything is still the same as it was since the creation of the world!" ...
8 But do not forget one thing, my dear friends! There is no difference in the Lord's sight between one day and a thousand years; to him the two are the same. 9 The Lord is not slow to do what he has promised, as some think. Instead, he is patient with you, because he does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants all to turn away from their sins. 2 Peter 3:3-4, 8-9 TEV

essay wrote: Finally (for now), I do not see how Matthew's and Luke's almost totally different geneaologies of Jesus 'complement each other'. I hope you'll address this more completely, and, if you don't have the opportunity before the Holidays, I'll say right now,

I suggested (as many others have before) that Luke has the maternal genealogy, consistent with his whole picture of Jesus as "son of Man." Specifically, he acknowledges but sets aside Joseph in Luke 3:23 and lists Heli, the physical father of Mary, of whom Jesus is son. Strangely, I've read that there is a passage in the Talmud that supports this interpretation, referring to Mary as daughter of Heli, but more importantly it is consistent with Luke's whole emphasis on Mary, and consistent with the final link in Luke's genealogy, Adam the son of God. Matthew on the other hand gives the legal lineage of Joseph's forebears, of whom Jesus is the heir. This is also consistent with Paul's assertion that Jesus was the descendant of David "according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3, 2 Timothy 2:8).

essay wrote: Merry Christmas to Everyone at Living Waters, and to all a Good Night!

No hard feelings? I hope not. Best wishes to you, Susan, in every way.