Genealogies

[Palatka51]

What is your take on the genealogies in the Bible?

 

[Crabtownboy]

What is your take on the genealogies in the Bible?

Rather boring reading to me.

 

[webdog]

What is your take on the genealogies in the Bible?

They're God breathed.

 

[Deacon]

IMO, different times had different customs with regard to how the dates were recorded and what they meant.

Rob

 

[saturneptune]

What is your take on the genealogies in the Bible?

The differences between the geneologies in Matthew and Luke are interesting. What is your idea about that?

In lots of the geneologies, including the OT, I have read studies about "telescoping" the generations, sometimes a grandfather being listed as a father for example, sometimes to make a certain number of generations fit.

Yes, this is all interesting, but as the Scripture says, some back then used geneologies to Abraham as a substitute for a humble and loving heart through faith for the Lord.

 

[Amy.G]

The genealogies are very important. They show that prophecy was fulfilled in the Messiah coming from the line of David.

 

[Joseph M. Smith]

The genealogies serve to demonstrate that ours is a historical rather than mythological faith. Even if some of the Genesis genealogies are of dubious historicity (on the other hand, how would you check them?!), their thrust is to show a God who is active in history. With the exception of that cryptic passage in Genesis 6 about angels mating with women, they exhibit none of the notions about descendancy from divine beings that you would find in, for example, Greek or Roman mythologies.

It has always been interesting to me to notice how frequently Biblical writers took pains to root themselves in real time ... everything from the references to the Exile in the Old Testament to Luke's references to the reign of Augustus and the terms of local magistrates. Ours is a historically-based faith.

Anybody still read G. Ernest Wright, The God Who Acts?

 

[kyredneck]

The differences between the geneologies in Matthew and Luke are interesting. What is your idea about that?....

I knew that the genealogy given in Luke was through Mary, showing her to be of the line of David, and have thought that this doubly validates Christ’s right to the throne of David as son of David; but have also thought it significant that this genealogy is through Adam, the son of God.

God was the immediate father of both Adams.

So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 1 Cor 15:45

the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. Lu 3:38

“….The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God. Lu 1:35

Nathanael answered him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God (through Mary);thou art King of Israel (through David). Jn 1:49

 

[Jim1999]

The one argument about the inconsistency of the genealogies is that they were not strictly Jewish genealogies in that 4 women are listed. A Jewish genealogy would not have a woman listed. A direct line of descent is all that these genealogies were designed to express. Three of the women were guilty of gross sin, and then there was Ruth, a Gentile.

Then there is also a legal descent and a royal descent. Each list serves a specific purpose, establishing both the legal and royal descent of Jesus. Matthew gives Joseph's legal descent, showing Joseph's right as successor to the throne of David. Luke, on the other hand, gives Joseph's real parentage.

On the other side of page, writers suggest Matthew gives the real descent of Joseph, and Luke the real descent of Mary. Remember, Joseph is the legal father of Jesus.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Grasshopper]

They were critical in the Old Covenant, but not so much past that:

Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish questions and genealogies and contentions, and strivings about the Law, for they are unprofitable and vain.

1Ti 1:4 nor to give heed to fables and endless genealogies (which provide doubts rather than the nurture of God in faith).

 

[kyredneck]

They were critical in the Old Covenant, but not so much past that:

Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish questions and genealogies and contentions, and strivings about the Law, for they are unprofitable and vain.

1Ti 1:4 nor to give heed to fables and endless genealogies (which provide doubts rather than the nurture of God in faith).

Are you implying that this thread is unprofitable and vain because it is on the topic of genealogies? I've actually found it interesting with no harm done whatsoever.

 

[kyredneck]

The one argument about the inconsistency of the genealogies is that they were not strictly Jewish genealogies in that 4 women are listed. A Jewish genealogy would not have a woman listed. A direct line of descent is all that these genealogies were designed to express. Three of the women were guilty of gross sin, and then there was Ruth, a Gentile.

Then there is also a legal descent and a royal descent. Each list serves a specific purpose, establishing both the legal and royal descent of Jesus. Matthew gives Joseph's legal descent, showing Joseph's right as successor to the throne of David. Luke, on the other hand, gives Joseph's real parentage.

On the other side of page, writers suggest Matthew gives the real descent of Joseph, and Luke the real descent of Mary. Remember, Joseph is the legal father of Jesus.

Cheers,

Jim

Thanks Jim. I never knew about the royal vs the legal descent.

 

[Winman]

The genealogies are difficult to read and tedious, but I try to remind myself that I am reading the word of God and these passages were important to God, and so I should read them.

I do think they are important to historians and archaeolgists especially. They are helpful for setting accurate dates, and many finds have proven the Bible true and accurate.

A few years ago the tomb of Caiaphas was found.

The Caiaphas family tomb was accidentally discovered by workers constructing a road in a park just south of the Old City of Jerusalem. Archaeologists were hastily called to the scene. When they examined the tomb they found 12 ossuaries (limestone bone boxes) containing the remains of 63 individuals. The most beautifully decorated of the ossuaries was inscribed with the name "Joseph son of (or, of the family of) Caiaphas." That was the full name of the high priest who arrested Jesus, as documented by Josephus (Antiquities 18: 2, 2; 4, 3). Inside were the remains of a 60-year-old male, almost certainly those of the Caiaphas of the New Testament. This remarkable discovery has, for the first time, provided us with the physical remains of an individual named in the Bible.

 

[FlyForFun]

Genealogies are comforting as they provide names of individual people that are elemental to God's work on Earth.

 

[Darrenss1]

The one argument about the inconsistency of the genealogies is that they were not strictly Jewish genealogies in that 4 women are listed. A Jewish genealogy would not have a woman listed. A direct line of descent is all that these genealogies were designed to express. Three of the women were guilty of gross sin, and then there was Ruth, a Gentile.

Then there is also a legal descent and a royal descent. Each list serves a specific purpose, establishing both the legal and royal descent of Jesus. Matthew gives Joseph's legal descent, showing Joseph's right as successor to the throne of David. Luke, on the other hand, gives Joseph's real parentage.

On the other side of page, writers suggest Matthew gives the real descent of Joseph, and Luke the real descent of Mary. Remember, Joseph is the legal father of Jesus.

Exactly right!! There is a difference between saying "begat" and "the son of". I have had atheist use the difference in the genealogy of Matthew and Luke to claim there is a contradiction in the bible. The standards of genealogy was for that time very accurate and critically important; I find the Jews were first class as to tracing their ancestors, both through Mary (Heli) and through Joseph (Jacob), their lineage was all important to the establishment of the credentials of Jesus as the Messiah being in the line of David. Its amazing that both Mary and Joseph were direct descendants of David!!

Just more evidence to the accuracy of the Word of God...

Darren