A Final Proof Against Christianity
- Thread starter §outh§tar
- Start date
anonymous2
Registered Senior Member
MarcAC said:
I don't know if Christians would be interested in another viewpoint on this or not. But, if they are out to strengthen their faith from hearing an atheist viewpoint and poking holes in it (although I don't consider myself an atheist, but an agnostic), I'll give it.
Daniel. That he wrote before 500 BCE is disputed itself. Some believe Daniel is a forgery during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes around 160 something BCE. Still, this would put the alleged prophecy before Jesus, so I'll still deal with it.
First, the "weeks" may not even have been weeks of years. It's believed it is, because the desire of prophecy fulfillment. Both Jews and Christians look at it this way, although they come to different conclusions of time periods and who is involved. Jews and Christians differ over the division between 7 weeks and 62 weeks. Jews see it as an odd way of saying 69 weeks if that was the intention. So they see it as 7 weeks until an annointed, and that there's another annointed which I think they think was Herod the Great or perhaps someone else, like the last Jewish high priest or something before the 2nd Temple fell. The first annointed was Cyrus to them (although I think I recall hearing that perhaps it was a high priest at the time named Joshua). Isaiah refers to Cyrus as the Lord's annointed. So there's a reason the Jews believe this, they didn't get their interpretation out of thin air. And there's also a non-Christian viewpoint, which takes an even different starting date and figures. But taken literally, it does not need to mean weeks of years from what I can tell.
But let's say it is weeks of years. Where was the starting point? There's disagreement. And Christians themselves choose different starting points, which shows that the starting point (which decree of Artaxerxes?) date itself is disputed. I've read from like 458BCE to 444BCE. And why the variance? Whether someone wants to believe "prophetic years" (which is speculative based on a particular reading of Genesis and Revelation's idea of how long a month is), or normal solar years. So it's speculative in order to get the date desired.
Let's go ahead and assume that the Christians are right about one of their start dates and it puts us to the time of Jesus. If you read the NT, does a single person in it quote this supposed 69 weeks of years prophecy with Jesus being its terminus ad quem, which is supposedly one of the BEST prophecies Christians have of Jesus? Odd in my opinion, if the early Christians did indeed see it as prophecying of Jesus, considering they quoted many, many other passages that weren't as remotely convincing as this one supposedly is.
Let's go ahead and say Christians are right about all of this. So the Messiah was expected based on Daniel at a certain date. So it was known, right? What would be to prevent someone from claiming, or writing that the prophecy was fulfilled? And what do we do about the last week? Who ever said there was supposed to be an almost 2000 year gap or more between the 69th and 70th week? Nothing in the context suggests this.
Micah 5:2. That's believed because the NT says Jesus was born in Bethlehem. But this is only a great fulfillment if the NT is accepted that Jesus was the Messiah. If he wasn't, and he was just someone who claimed to be born from Bethlehem (even if he actually was), it's not a big thing. So it's circular. Also, "Bethlehem-Ephrathah" may have simply meant David's tribe, not necessarily the city of Bethlehem (though it doesn't exclude it).
The Zechariah prophecy. One must assume the NT to be true to believe this. So it's circular.
Psalm 22. Disputed passage. Jews render it "like a lion they are at my hands and feet", not "they pierced my hands and feet". You can see the animal motif in the surrounding verses, so there's nothing really odd about that.
Zechariah 12:10. Subject to translation. A Jewish view is: "...and they [the Jews] shall bow down/supplicate unto Me because of their wanderings. And they shall look unto Me to complain about those [Jews] whom the nations thrust through and slew during their [Jewish] exile."
The Isaiah prediction of Cyrus. Predicated upon believing that Isaiah actually uttered this prophecy before Cyrus and is not history made into prophecy.
The prophecy of Jerusalem being rebuilt. Where does Ross get his evidence that Jerusalem was really built according to that Bible passage? From my understanding, it's based on theory of where old places may presently be, designed to prove this very Bible verse. And, even if it WERE true, can't Jews read? Maybe they thought this passage applied to them and the prophecy was self-fulfilled.
Anyway, I'm not really in the mood to thoroughly investigate all of Ross' claims right now.
IF Christians are interested in looking at other views, they can go to http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/steven_carr/non-messianic.html, or http://www.hotcom.net/users/shagbark/, or http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html, or http://www.awitness.org/lostmess/fprophet.html.
Also, here are Farrell Till's responses to Hugh Ross' alleged Bible prophecy fulfillment claims:
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1996/1/1unpro96.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1996/2/2ross96.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1996/3/3ross96.html
This is ONLY if Christians are interested in the other views and wish to pick them apart. I myself somewhat forgot how much it really means to a Christian to believe in Jesus for salvation, like when I first started posting on this forum, so if Christians aren't interested, I understand.
Last edited:
c20H25N3o: God bless you. I too testify that atheists play a very important role in increasing the Christian's faith. It is a blessing from God. I have been blessed by it.
*************
M*W: That goes for atheists, too. It is you christians who brilliantly reinforce our belief that there is no god. If atheists play an important role in increasing your christian faith, then you are admitting that you don't have a god.
*************
M*W: That goes for atheists, too. It is you christians who brilliantly reinforce our belief that there is no god. If atheists play an important role in increasing your christian faith, then you are admitting that you don't have a god.
are you deranged c20,
gold dont talk, but then again, you have an invisble thing talking to you, so why not gold.
anyhow gold is quite happy being a nugget, it has no need to be forged.
try to learn from what people are telling you.
gold dont talk, but then again, you have an invisble thing talking to you, so why not gold.
anyhow gold is quite happy being a nugget, it has no need to be forged.
try to learn from what people are telling you.
mustafhakofi said:
If they do God's will I will learn many things from them, but if those people have their minds set on the things of man, what on earth can I learn from them for I too am a man just like them?
The gold may not be able to speak, nor the hammer (although in the metaphorical sense of course they can but I think you missed that part
), but the forger can talk and he can do what He damn well likes with both the hammer and the gold. Some gold He will make into rings for his sons, other gold he will make into the finest goblets for his sons, other gold he will make plates out of to serve them their meals, whilst other gold he will make the finest wedding band out of, this he will of course give to his wife. The forger is not a forger without his hammer however.peace
c20
mustafhakofi said:
that they dont need your incessent preaching, they dont need to be forged.c20H25N3o said:
there happy in there humanity, they dont need an invisible sky daddy.
no you've missed the point completely,c20 said:The gold may not be able to speak, nor the hammer (although in the metaphorical sense of course they can but I think you missed that part
do not preach to those who dont want it.
peace off
musta
c20H25N3o: God bless you. I too testify that atheists play a very important role in increasing the Christian's faith. It is a blessing from God. I have been blessed by it.
*************
M*W: You are a liar because you are still preaching to us! You should shut up and listen to what we have to say.
*************
M*W: You are a liar because you are still preaching to us! You should shut up and listen to what we have to say.
c20H25N3o: We are all God's instruments.
*************
M*W: If God uses all of us for his instruments, why do you keep preaching to convert us away from what God would have us rightfully to be doing?
*************
M*W: If God uses all of us for his instruments, why do you keep preaching to convert us away from what God would have us rightfully to be doing?
By the same token the hammer would not be needed if it were not for the gold. And the gold would not be needed if it were not for the sons. It is for the sons that God makes the hammer and the gold. Keep bashing me in the face therefore. It serves the sons.
peace
c20
peace
c20
c20H25N3o: If they do God's will I will learn many things from them, but if those people have their minds set on the things of man, what on earth can I learn from them for I too am a man just like them?
*************
M*W: You just contradicted yourself! You said "we were all God's instruments." So how can we not be doing God's will? We can all be each other's teacher, regardless of wherein our expertise may be. You are not willing to learn from us because you JUDGE us and don't even KNOW us or what we have to offer! We do have our minds set on the things of NOT man but humanity -- healthcare, hunger, homes, environment, peace among all nations, the state of our affairs, loving each other... the list never ends.
*************
c20: The gold may not be able to speak, nor the hammer (although in the metaphorical sense of course they can but I think you missed that part ), but the forger can talk and he can do what He damn well likes with both the hammer and the gold. Some gold He will make into rings for his sons, other gold he will make into the finest goblets for his sons, other gold he will make plates out of to serve them their meals, whilst other gold he will make the finest wedding band out of, this he will of course give to his wife. The forger is not a forger without his hammer however.
*************
M*W: In all your misogynistic preaching, you have proven yourself to be a real male chauvinist pig. Did you learn how to do this from your faith in christianity?
*************
M*W: You just contradicted yourself! You said "we were all God's instruments." So how can we not be doing God's will? We can all be each other's teacher, regardless of wherein our expertise may be. You are not willing to learn from us because you JUDGE us and don't even KNOW us or what we have to offer! We do have our minds set on the things of NOT man but humanity -- healthcare, hunger, homes, environment, peace among all nations, the state of our affairs, loving each other... the list never ends.
*************
c20: The gold may not be able to speak, nor the hammer (although in the metaphorical sense of course they can but I think you missed that part
), but the forger can talk and he can do what He damn well likes with both the hammer and the gold. Some gold He will make into rings for his sons, other gold he will make into the finest goblets for his sons, other gold he will make plates out of to serve them their meals, whilst other gold he will make the finest wedding band out of, this he will of course give to his wife. The forger is not a forger without his hammer however.*************
M*W: In all your misogynistic preaching, you have proven yourself to be a real male chauvinist pig. Did you learn how to do this from your faith in christianity?
Medicine Woman said:c20H25N3o: If they do God's will I will learn many things from them, but if those people have their minds set on the things of man, what on earth can I learn from them for I too am a man just like them?
*************
M*W: You just contradicted yourself! You said "we were all God's instruments." So how can we not be doing God's will? We can all be each other's teacher, regardless of wherein our expertise may be. You are not willing to learn from us because you JUDGE us and don't even KNOW us or what we have to offer! We do have our minds set on the things of NOT man but humanity -- healthcare, hunger, homes, environment, peace among all nations, the state of our affairs, loving each other... the list never ends.
*************
c20: The gold may not be able to speak, nor the hammer (although in the metaphorical sense of course they can but I think you missed that part
*************
M*W: In all your misogynistic preaching, you have proven yourself to be a real male chauvinist pig. Did you learn how to do this from your faith in christianity?
You see here M*W, you tell me how great you are whereas I tell you how great God is. Why do my words bother you so greatly? Is it because it flies in the face of your belief that you are God, going about doing your good works. i've got news for you M*W, you are not God, did you create the heavens and the earth? No! You were born of woman, a seed sown by your father. But you cannot trace the original seed because that would infer a creator of the original seed. A seed does not just pop into being, it must be designed and created with a specific purpose. A plum seed gives rise to a plum tree, an orange pip gives rise to an orange tree and a human seed gives rise to a human baby. You nor any of your ancestors created the original seed. The original seed was created by God when He said "Let us make living beings like us, in Our image". You are the fruit of that original seed but you deny the God that made it and you deny the truth of Christ because it upsets you to find out that you are not no. 1. You hate Paul because he is a man who turned to God in all humility despite being a killer of Christians. You hate him because you feel he has given credibility to Christians through his conversion. You hate him because he extols the virtues of marraige where God is first, then man, then woman. Man is God's glory and woman is man's glory but you wont accept this so you hate Paul. It is too obvious. If man shows woman the same love that God shows him, how can anyone be a loser? It is only when man does not know God that woman is in peril.
peace
c20
c20H25N3o: You see here M*W, you tell me how great you are whereas I tell you how great God is.
*************
M*W: Where have I ever said I was great? You are a liar.
*************
c20: Why do my words bother you so greatly? Is it because it flies in the face of your belief that you are God, going about doing your good works.
*************
M*W: Your words bother me because they are lies. I believe all of creation and humanity could be God. I didn't specify that I alone was God! Why do you keep lying -- because you don't know the truth?
*************
c20: i've got news for you M*W, you are not God, did you create the heavens and the earth? No! You were born of woman, a seed sown by your father. But you cannot trace the original seed because that would infer a creator of the original seed. A seed does not just pop into being, it must be designed and created with a specific purpose. A plum seed gives rise to a plum tree, an orange pip gives rise to an orange tree and a human seed gives rise to a human baby. You nor any of your ancestors created the original seed. The original seed was created by God when He said "Let us make living beings like us, in Our image". You are the fruit of that original seed but you deny the God that made it and you deny the truth of Christ because it upsets you to find out that you are not no. 1.
*************
M*W: You're groveling for words, because you don't know God. I never wanted to be number one. I kinda like being among humanity.
*************
c20: You hate Paul because he is a man who turned to God in all humility despite being a killer of Christians. You hate him because you feel he has given credibility to Christians through his conversion. You hate him because he extols the virtues of marraige where God is first, then man, then woman. Man is God's glory and woman is man's glory but you wont accept this so you hate Paul. It is too obvious. If man shows woman the same love that God shows him, how can anyone be a loser? It is only when man does not know God that woman is in peril.
*************
M*W: I don't 'hate' Paul, because he's a dead ancient man. Why waste my energy on Paul? Paul was a well-known liar of his day. I don't trust in Paul nor do I believe anything he wrote. You must not have read what Paul had to say about marriage -- extolling marriage was not what Paul believed. I don't believe any man could be God, in fact, the OT belief was that male and female were one. Women have been imperiled by men since the story of creation (Moses' writings). Even Moses had an androgynous physical appearance. Was he both male and female? Of course Adam and Eve simply mean the Earth and all living things on the Earth. I don't hate Adam, I don't hate Jesus, but I don't believe Adam was human, but I do believe Jesus was born of a woman who had had intercourse. Why would anyone hate ancient people, places or things? That's illogical.
*************
M*W: Where have I ever said I was great? You are a liar.
*************
c20: Why do my words bother you so greatly? Is it because it flies in the face of your belief that you are God, going about doing your good works.
*************
M*W: Your words bother me because they are lies. I believe all of creation and humanity could be God. I didn't specify that I alone was God! Why do you keep lying -- because you don't know the truth?
*************
c20: i've got news for you M*W, you are not God, did you create the heavens and the earth? No! You were born of woman, a seed sown by your father. But you cannot trace the original seed because that would infer a creator of the original seed. A seed does not just pop into being, it must be designed and created with a specific purpose. A plum seed gives rise to a plum tree, an orange pip gives rise to an orange tree and a human seed gives rise to a human baby. You nor any of your ancestors created the original seed. The original seed was created by God when He said "Let us make living beings like us, in Our image". You are the fruit of that original seed but you deny the God that made it and you deny the truth of Christ because it upsets you to find out that you are not no. 1.
*************
M*W: You're groveling for words, because you don't know God. I never wanted to be number one. I kinda like being among humanity.
*************
c20: You hate Paul because he is a man who turned to God in all humility despite being a killer of Christians. You hate him because you feel he has given credibility to Christians through his conversion. You hate him because he extols the virtues of marraige where God is first, then man, then woman. Man is God's glory and woman is man's glory but you wont accept this so you hate Paul. It is too obvious. If man shows woman the same love that God shows him, how can anyone be a loser? It is only when man does not know God that woman is in peril.
*************
M*W: I don't 'hate' Paul, because he's a dead ancient man. Why waste my energy on Paul? Paul was a well-known liar of his day. I don't trust in Paul nor do I believe anything he wrote. You must not have read what Paul had to say about marriage -- extolling marriage was not what Paul believed. I don't believe any man could be God, in fact, the OT belief was that male and female were one. Women have been imperiled by men since the story of creation (Moses' writings). Even Moses had an androgynous physical appearance. Was he both male and female? Of course Adam and Eve simply mean the Earth and all living things on the Earth. I don't hate Adam, I don't hate Jesus, but I don't believe Adam was human, but I do believe Jesus was born of a woman who had had intercourse. Why would anyone hate ancient people, places or things? That's illogical.
what free will, where.
MarcAC said:
Sorry about the late reply but I took the time to fully consider your response and implications.
First of all, what does that statement mean? I know if I try to interpret it you will say I am judging you or whatever..
Do tell me why doubting not the sincerity, but the accuracy of the biblical authors, is unjustified. Perhaps you misunderstand, as I did not question the sincerity of the authors.
1) The sincerity of the authors cannot be determined
2) The sincerity of the authors has no relevance whatsoever on their accuracy. In fact, it makes them more biased than not.
What is a 'baseless base'?
Since Jesus was not Joseph's son, then Jesus was adopted.I have showed you an ENTIRE list in the post above yours showing that the Gospel writers deliberately attempted to show the biological heritage of Jesus. Your conscience has apparently led you to ignore the list to make up some more claims.
A quick look at the NT shows however that Joseph was Jesus' father: John 1:45, 6:42, Luke 2:27, 41, 4:22, Luke 2:33,43, Matt. 13:55, Luke 3:23
Since Joseph was Heli's son-in-law (not adopted after all),(
Your first guess, the Levirate is clearly absurd. Do you wish to show how the Levirate applied to every single descendant of the house of David except Schealtiel and Zerubbabel? Failure to do so means you are a liar subject to dishonest speculation.
The link you provided contains equally fallacious information:
As St. Jerome rightly said, "It is not the custom of the scriptures to count women in their genealogies." Thus a genealogy traced from Mary's side is of NO value in determining the descendents from David.
Moreover, Luke makes Mary the relative of Elizabeth (Luke 1:36), whom he gave as a descendent of priestly family of Aaron (Luke 1:5) thereby making Mary of Aaronic heritage (the house of Judah) and NOT Davidic heritage (the house of David).
EVEN if I were to shut my eyes and say you were somehow correct, we still arrive at the conclusion that Jesus was born of a sinner, which according to the NT, makes him a sinner as well.
Just as you ignored the list I provided. Way to keep your mind open, especially coming from someone who ignores parts of posts he cannot defend. I see you have ignored parts of my posts where I have rejected the so-called messianic prophecy 'fulfillments'. Again, ample evidence of you keeping an open mind..
-----
According to the prophecy of Jeremiah 22:28-30, there could be no king in Israel who was a Descendant of King Jeconiah, and Matthew 1:12 relates that Joseph was from the line of Jeconiah. If Jesus had been fathered by Joseph, He could not rightly inherit the throne of David, since he was a relative of the cursed line.
http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart12.html#ref127
----
What silly conjecture? Do tell me how it is even as remotely stupid as claiming one genealogy gives the legal heritage as I have shown, or even "adoption aspects", as the obvious deficiencies and omissions in the genealogies discount .
Secondly, in Matthew 1:8, the author skipped three generations from Joram to Uziah to keep his numerology consistent. This in itself dashes your baseless claims to the rocks for the author himself arbitrarily includes Jehoiachin twice in the same genealogy. As II Kings 24:6 clearly states, Josi'ah is NOT the father of Jeconiah, therefore the author is again dishonest.
Taking these damning errors into account, we see that your so-called explanations are not only arbitrary, but are demonstrably false and simply dishonest.
Either you are a moron or you simply enjoy taking me out of context. If I am an atheist, I OBVIOUSLY am not "subscribed to the will of God", and therefore it is for you to admit your lack of understanding and ask me what I meant by that instead of making such stupid comments.
My point was:
How do you know Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses, Muslims, Catholics, animists and so on are not "subcribed to the will of God"?
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=41011
Ignoring your ad hominem insinuations that I have been swindled by an atheist cardtrick, I will remind you that after soundly refuting your baseless claims, you have only resorted to focusing on parts of my responses, comments on my 'brainwashing', 'confusion' and just plain inane interpretations wholly unsupported by the texts. Try do better in your response.
No atheist should take any statement of judgement as anything more than poking fun because such a statement is of no conqequence to the atheist (in their mind). No God to say do not judge.§outh§tar said:
What was meant is exactly what was implied. One inconsequential 'unfullfilled' (as claimed and challenged) prophecy among even 50 fullfilled is not reason for any Christian to abondon their faith - it gives reason to search for answers - such is the method scientists employ. Atheists look to science with such a divine outlook that it always serves as a usueful comparison.
Your conjecture all depends on what you mean by "sincerity". Of course there is justification in doubting the historical accuracy of the biblical authors in some cases. However, as surely as God exists, and those men had faith in God, and one has faith in God as those men saw God, God's truth speaks through their words regardless.
That to which the word baseless is arbitrarily assigned when one doesn't like what is stated.
Conscience is not applicable in such a case: only rationale along with memory. In many cases, as most should know, the word son does not refer strictly to biology. There are theological aspects to the Biblical texts which one (although he may) should not simply ignore when he searches for contradictions within the biblical text.
This same method of interpretation was employed in the wonderful thread; "Jesus Is Not Coming" and though repeated attempts were made to highlight the convenient limits placed on the definitions of some words they were largely ignored only asking for "contextual evidence" that one particular meaning is implied.
There is no need for the levirate marraige to apply to every single descendant in the House of David, where in the post was that indicated - care to indicate or is dishonesty inherrent in such a statement - or maybe honesty to one's rationale? No surprise in any case - whatever restricts an atheist from holding dishonesty as a guiding principle? See below...
[Falacious]... And so the stated person's words are taken on faith? Very Christian - it seems some Christian elements still linger - though questionably applied.
Anywho; The virgin birth was of unprecedented theological significance. What the book of Luke shows is that Jesus seemed to do away with traditional practices even simply through His birth. What a Mighty God?! Luke would have very good reason to focus on Mary's genealogy as he was focusing on a virgin birth. Regardless, as was stated, there are many possible solutions to the claimed inconsistencies, and there is no reason presented, just yet, for any rational, logical, faithful, and non-wagonist Christian to abandon their faith. It is advised that something else be tried. It makes one wonder what the justification for (de)conversion was in the first place. Only God knows. Maybe just lack of faith in God (speculation).
- N.B. The link supplied is not intended to brainwash, but to allow one to review the available information and formulate a conclusion between himself and God.
There, even the bolded parts were fixed. Now to fix the text;
2 Samuel 2 [NIV]:
"David Anointed King Over Judah
1. In the course of time, David inquired of the LORD . "Shall I go up to one of the towns of Judah?" he asked.
The LORD said, "Go up."
David asked, "Where shall I go?"
"To Hebron," the LORD answered.
2. So David went up there with his two wives, Ahinoam of Jezreel and Abigail, the widow of Nabal of Carmel. 3. David also took the men who were with him, each with his family, and they settled in Hebron and its towns. 4. Then the men of Judah came to Hebron and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah.
When David was told that it was the men of Jabesh Gilead who had buried Saul, 5. he sent messengers to the men of Jabesh Gilead to say to them, "The LORD bless you for showing this kindness to Saul your master by burying him. 6. May the LORD now show you kindness and faithfulness, and I too will show you the same favor because you have done this. 7. Now then, be strong and brave, for Saul your master is dead, and the house of Judah has anointed me king over them."
"David Anointed King Over Judah
1. In the course of time, David inquired of the LORD . "Shall I go up to one of the towns of Judah?" he asked.
The LORD said, "Go up."
David asked, "Where shall I go?"
"To Hebron," the LORD answered.
2. So David went up there with his two wives, Ahinoam of Jezreel and Abigail, the widow of Nabal of Carmel. 3. David also took the men who were with him, each with his family, and they settled in Hebron and its towns. 4. Then the men of Judah came to Hebron and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah.
When David was told that it was the men of Jabesh Gilead who had buried Saul, 5. he sent messengers to the men of Jabesh Gilead to say to them, "The LORD bless you for showing this kindness to Saul your master by burying him. 6. May the LORD now show you kindness and faithfulness, and I too will show you the same favor because you have done this. 7. Now then, be strong and brave, for Saul your master is dead, and the house of Judah has anointed me king over them."
Please, do not, although that may be done when taking atheist crap and using it to fight against God and His Word. So failing that, we move to other feeble attacks. Jesus never sinned, therefore Jesus was no sinner. That is why one must conlcude the Bible is God's word, because every seeming attack on it's veracity seems to be a boomerang.
As was implied in the statement; "I have two responses as seem appropriate", some posts speak for themselves and therefore need no refuting.
Heh. What a sinusoidal wave of attacks? First we question the veracity of prophecies to question the veracity of the text, then we use the veracity of the prophecies to question the veracity of the text. What a tangled web we weave. Oh and now Jesus was the Son of Joseph? So now son may be applied in a non-biological sense? Hilarious. O.k., I think I'll accept this one as one of the unfulfilled prophecies. Anymore?
Take a look at the link of possible solutions above. It is quite an informative read. However, the words are not to be taken on faith in the author, but faith in God. The onus on us in all our rational honesty is to review the information presented, and check it's varacity. Have fun.
What claim do your refer to here? The reason why the author includes Jeconiah twice is given, then it is stated that it was arbitrarily done... [Arbitrary]. Of what significance is this? Huh?
The word son was often used instead of grandson, great grandson etc. 2 Kings states that Jeconiah was the son of Jehohiakin? Josiah was father of Jehohiakin? Therefore in the name of tradition Jeconiah is son of Josiah? Josiah if father of Jeconiah. Jesus is the Son of David.
Parts that may be of any particular consequence to the faithful and rational Christian reading it. As was stated, for those - no responses required. They speak for themselves.Let us all remember Jesus statement about the atom in the perceived and the galaxy in the perceiving.