we must avoid jumping too quickly to conclusions for example: when we compare the list of kings in book kings and chronicles and chronicles chapter three to the first chapter of matthew a simple person jumps too quickly to the conclusion "matthew is flawed" due to the difference between chronicles 3 and the list in matthew yet there are five or more combinations to solve the difference.
the difference: the former covenant lists many kings between asa until jotam in contrast to matthew where "jotam grandfather was joram" not amazia. who is the name between them? vague.
still we can compare the granpa.
actualy the word in matthew is "gennes" meaning cause like genesis... mathew never claimed to list fathers. one option is to focus on the wording clues: the author intentionally did not write father. in fact the number 14 indicates that for the purpose of the number 14, that causd intentional skip generations intentionally for the purpose of the number 14 in poetic groups.
this approach leads to the conclusion "amazia was grandfather of jotam."
A. amazia.
another posssibility is matthew meant father. it told "part of the story" every name is true and the list is simply shorter. "ozias is ahazia" simply the long list is true and the short list is part.
b. this also leads to the conclusion amazia was grandfather of jotam.
another possibility is kings is flawed... we know from other samples that kings is flawed the years between exodus until solomon also between mesa until nebukadnezer thus kings and chronicles are flawed and not a challenge to matthew. matthew has the only true source joram grandfather.
c. conclusion: joram but amazia was not the grandfather.
another combination: matthew meant father and joram is grandfather not amaziah, that tells the reality while book kings is "not false" but a mystery. conclusion: only joram.
i also bothered to ask a professor. that messinaic jew who rose to the status of professor claimed that matthew is "not precise" saying "dont expect precision." i add if matthew was wrtten by divine assistance we shoud expect precision... but if i follow the logic "a or b" that he said "not by divine assisatnce" he will say "he never said THAT", just that it is "not precise" but what yes? error or lie? he never said that either... just what "not... i see from that experience that even the new testament cant fix the filth in jews.
another possibility is matthew meant father despite the word gennes, and the grandfather was not amazia. "matthew is more trustworthy" and the rest of the list is verified granting more trust than the partial list in chronicles. chronicles is "also not false" but a mystery while the truth is believe matthew due to greater reliability "jotam grandfather was joram" not amazia.
conclusion joram.
we see very so many possibilities... yet a simple person says "a flaw" if they have the "confirmation bias" of rejecting the christian books they will reject matthew without checking... but we see many options.
in contrast the commentaries on chronicles note the difference about matanya was he uncle or brother? again we must not jump to conclusions that the books are flawed only different... until we investigate... one commentary wrote "uncle means brother" so believe brother. the other commentary claims "brother means uncle" after investigation we see both only had the option and "corrupted the text" in contrast to the word gennes... after we see the only defense is to ignore the word in the text... indicates what we already know about the books kings and chronicles. after we believe god knew which is true while the authors did not know, this indicates the books and authors were separate from holy god the authors were separate from god who knows if uncle or not... yet the authors wrote both versions, those authors and books were separate from holy god and the books not holy we MUST NOT MIX those books together with real prophecies such as jeremia, mentioned by name in matthew, the same as not injecting pagan christmas date into a system whose book never commanded such a celebration. who included them in the first place? rabbis chose we cant trust rabbis.
josephus the historian did not "rely"on either version. he has a third combination without the name "matanya" but "zedekia was uncle" the difference is josepus did not quote either source only preserved the history. he was not prefering either of the bad sources nor quoting either insted he preserved the true history that zedekia was the kings uncle. josps true but not holy in contrast to those injected books that rabbis wrongly chose to include, maybe he was not even named matanya and he certainly was not the kings brother either... after seeing the defenses are far from the text that flaw is real in contrast to the difference in matthew the words are not corrupted and even if gennes means father can be defended several interpretations.
despite the convenience of your chart to gather the scatterd numbers from book kings (paralleling chron') i add two details that match each other. 1, we know the years of mesa mesha which is used to support the story of josapat historicly, 843 bc. we know the years between nbkdnzr and mesa too. we combine this external challenge to the book with the list in matthew chapter one by jotam and joram and we see that the holy spirit thru mathew fixd the error that rabbis prefer in the book kings. pair and fix jotam son ahazia =ozias s. of joram near 830 bc not 890 nor the total in the rabbi book.( identifying the superfluous azaria amazia.) blesings.
ReplyDelete