Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Matthew 1:17 ¶ So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Matthew 1:17 ¶ So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen; from David to the Babylonian deportation (exile), fourteen generations; and from the Babylonian deportation to the Messiah, fourteen generations. |
Subject: How many generations betw Exodus-Solomon |
Bible Note: Dear Jim, Had you said "it seems unlikely" or "it doesn't appear reasonable to assume" or some similar phrase, I'd have not even participated in the thread. However, I assumed that a statement of such certainty would have had a surer foundation. I really was hoping for something substantive that would bear the weight of your assertion. All that the Scripture gives is a name. Period. All that the scholars, you, and I have is that one name. That's it. Even logic allows that the Rahab of Matthew 1:5, Ruth 4:21, and Joshua 2:1 are the same person. The numbers -- numbers that we have to guess at anyway -- can be made to work out. Why, even Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown say, "It will be observed that Rachab is here represented as the great-grandmother of David (see Ruth 4:20-22; 1 Chronicles 2:11-15) -- a thing not beyond possibility indeed, but extremely improbable, there being about four centuries between them. There can hardly be a doubt that one or two intermediate links are omitted." The phrase from these scholars "not beyond possibility" stands in stark contrast to the Estesian assertion that it is "not possible" (post #207154). Consequently, I'm left with only two possibilities: all those scholars are wrong, or Jim Estes is wrong. (Logic prohibits that both are wrong.) Jim, there are Estes that are biologists, mathematicians, and medical doctors. I would not hesitate to approach any one of them with corresponding questions of biology, math, and medicine. But when two schmos like you and I stand up and contradict those who are studied and disciplined in their own field (a field in which we have no serious expertise), it would be prudent that we had our ducks in a row. Know what I mean? You'll forgive me, then, if I find greater credibility in the concensus of so many, theologically diverse, Bible scholars. (cf Proverbs 13:20a) Now, I don't want to renege on my promise to answer your questions in post #207174. I'll get that done shortly, but I'll respond under the post in which you made the queries. In Him, Doc |