[Hindsite]

If I give my kid a lighter and he sets something on fire besides candles, whose fault is it? The kid for starting the fires, or the one who gave him the lighter?

The one starting the fire, of course.

Praise the Lord.
HalleluYah

[Godstud]

So you'd blame the child for the parent being so ignorant as to give something to a child that could potentially backfire?

I sure hope you aren't a parent. Your arguments are idiotic.

[ingliz]

they should know better than us.

Am I confusing you? From my side, you appear to be arguing both sides against yourself.

Example:

Why use this?

profane history

When evidentialist apologetics establish an epistemology of suspicion: a belief that all beliefs are false until proven true.

Or this?

[can] validate the truth of scripture

When all scripture is given by inspiration of God.

and

“The just shall live by faith”

Habakkuk 2:4; Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:38.

faith

"His greatness is unsearchable."

Psalm 145:3

[O]ur faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors.

[Hindsite]

Am I confusing you? From my side, you appear to be arguing both sides against yourself.

Example:

Why use this?


When evidentialist apologetics establish an epistemology of suspicion: a belief that all beliefs are false until proven true.

Or this?


When all scripture is given by inspiration of God.

and

“The just shall live by faith”

Habakkuk 2:4; Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:38.


"His greatness is unsearchable."

Psalm 145:3

Isn't it wonderful?

Praise the Lord.
HalleluYah

[ingliz]

Isn't it wonderful?

For a believer, yes, but the capacity to hold a belief in God is not evidence of a God. Proving God's existence is impossible; the supernatural is not testable.

[Besoeker]

God is the primary light source.

Again, opinion stated as fact. Without a shred of testable evidence.
Here is a nice sunset taken from my back garden a couple of weeks ago:


Where is your primary source of light?

[Hindsite]

Again, opinion stated as fact. Without a shred of testable evidence.
Here is a nice sunset taken from my back garden a couple of weeks ago:


Where is your primary source of light?

Obviously, the primary source of light energy for our Earth is our Sun. By night we have moon reflection from the Sun part of the time. We also use fire, candles, lanterns, light bulbs, and flashlights. But all spiritual light comes from God.

Praise the Lord.
HalleluYah

[Besoeker]

Obviously, the primary source of light energy for our Earth is our Sun. By night we have moon reflection from the Sun part of the time. We also use fire, candles, lanterns, light bulbs, and flashlights. But all spiritual light comes from God.

Might I kindly suggest you reflect on what you posted previously?

"The fact that God created light from the darkness on the first day, does not prevent Him from making the Sun, Moon, and stars on the fourth day as secondary light sources"
You're even contradicting yourself.

[Hindsite]

Might I kindly suggest you reflect on what you posted previously?

"The fact that God created light from the darkness on the first day, does not prevent Him from making the Sun, Moon, and stars on the fourth day as secondary light sources"
You're even contradicting yourself.

How is that? I am going to the library to play chess with some other chess players now. Be back in a few hours.

[Besoeker]

How is that?

Simple. In one post you make at a secondary source. In a later one you make it a primary source.

[ingliz]

I can't tell you who has the right dates of if the dates are wrong or right or if King Ahab and King Jehu are the same as those in the Holy Bible or that they are different

E. H. Merrill, Old Testament History: A Theological Perspective, provides eight characteristics of the Old Testament histories:

(1) it is narrative, centering on people and events;

(2) it is biographical, telling the story about God’s work in this world through people;

(3) it is tendentious, seen through the perspective and interpretation of the authors;

(4) it is theocentric, presenting itself as the Word of God and not just a human record;

(5) it is selective, as all details that do not relate to the central message are ignored;

(6) it is historiographic, presenting itself as the writing of history;

(7) it is consistently contextual, not just telling the past but relating it to the needs of the present; and

(8) it is interpretive, yielding the author’s assessment of the events, often by way of editorial asides.

In other words, it is not to be trusted.

[Hindsite]

Simple. In one post you make at a secondary source. In a later one you make it a primary source.

That depends on what you are talking about. There are many light sources throughout the universe. So a distant star may be the primary source of physical light in another area of the universe. In the case of your picture of a sunset on the Earth, it is obviously clear that our Sun is the primary source of all the secondary sources of light in the universe.

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the light." He was referring to the spiritual light for this world. However, God provides all light and the energy in the universe. The Apostle Paul writes:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Colossians 1:16-17 KJV)

The KJV translates it "and by him all things consist" other translations have "and by him all things hold together." This indicates the primary source of gravitational energy as well as other kinds of energy, such as light.

E. H. Merrill, Old Testament History: A Theological Perspective, provides eight characteristics of the Old Testament histories:

(1) it is narrative, centering on people and events;

(2) it is biographical, telling the story about God’s work in this world through people;

(3) it is tendentious, seen through the perspective and interpretation of the authors;

(4) it is theocentric, presenting itself as the Word of God and not just a human record;

(5) it is selective, as all details that do not relate to the central message are ignored;

(6) it is historiographic, presenting itself as the writing of history;

(7) it is consistently contextual, not just telling the past but relating it to the needs of the present; and

(8) it is interpretive, yielding the author’s assessment of the events, often by way of editorial asides.

In other words, it is not to be trusted.

You are being dishonest here. I am sure that last sentence is yours and not from E. H. Merrill.

Praise the Lord.
HalleluYah

[ingliz]

I am sure that last sentence is yours

It is.

You are being dishonest here

I don't see any dishonesty. The 'quote', Mr. Merrill's eight characteristics of the Old Testament histories, is a quote from G. R. Osborne's Historical Narrative and Truth in the Bible. I didn't cite Dr. Osborne because he would disagree with my concluding remark and I didn't want it to appear I was putting words in his mouth.

This is a quote.

When one compares the order of events in the Synoptic Gospels, one realizes that chronological exactness was not a part of their purpose (indeed, in ancient history-writing as a whole). This is where the sacred imagination plays a part. For instance, John places the anointing of Jesus before the triumphal entry (probably the historical order), while the Synoptics place it later, in contrast to Judas’ betrayal (for theological reasons).

Fn 52, See C. L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues and Commentary

And this.

For instance, Matthew’s genealogy skips generations and artificially is organized into three groups of fourteen ancestors to highlight Jesus as the Davidic Messiah (the gematria of the Hebrew david is fourteen); but the list is still accurate in the sense that all were ancestors of Jesus.

And this

prose fiction is the best general rubric for describing biblical narrative

I didn't cite Dr. Osborne because he would disagree with my concluding remark

An example, a Mr. K. Humphreys and I disagreeing with Dr. Osborne.

but the list is still accurate...

No, it is not, Dr. Osborne.

The last set of fourteen names in the Jesus pedigree is the most problematic – and arguably the most pertinent for the veracity of the "historical Jesus". It covers five hundred years of wars, conquests and destructions from which even the Jewish prophets cannot assemble a cogent chronology.

Matthew needs to pick up the Davidic trail from Babylon. It is a time of Judean subjugation by the new superpower Persia. But Matthew's sources are conflicting. According to the book of Ezra the "Prince of Judah" was now Sheshbazzar:

"Even those did Cyrus king of Persia bring forth by the hand of Mithredath the treasurer, and numbered them unto Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah." – Ezra 1.8.

However, the book of Haggai, describing the same occasion, names "Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel" as the governor of Judah (Haggai 1:1).

Is Sheshbazzar an alternative name for Zerubbabel? Not according to Ezra 5 which makes clear they are distinct characters. Is Sheshbazzar, perhaps, a son of Jechonias, the last king of independent Judah? According to Chronicles the descendants of "Jehoiachin the captive"(Jechonias) were "Shealtiel (Salathiel) his son, Malkiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama and Nedabiah".

But the same text goes on to list Zerubbabel not as the son of Shealtiel but of Pedaiah, his brother. (1 Chronicles 3:19).

Thus we have three possible routes for the "Davidic line": Jechonias through Sheshbazzar; Jechonias through Shealtiel then Zerubbabel; and Jechonias through his brother Pedaiah then Zerubbabel. Ezra provides yet a fourth option. The scribe lists the families that had returned from exile:

"[T]his is the genealogy of those who went up with me from Babylon, in the reign of King Artaxerxes ... of the sons of David, Hattush" – Ezra 8:1-2.


This Hattush is a co-signatory of a "binding agreement" with Nehemiah the governor (Nehemiah 10:4) but neither he nor his descendents are heard of again.

Luke will later add yet another twist: Shealtiel's father was not Jechonias after all but an unknown man named Neri!

Matthew again simplifies all this in the interests of his holy master plan.

"And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel."
– Matthew 1:12.


But it gets worse!

Matthew agrees with Chronicles that Salathiel was the father of Zerubbabel but has different ideas as to where the sacred bloodline goes next. Chronicles rather fully details:

"The sons of Zerubbabel: Meshullam and Hananiah. Shelomith was their sister. There were also five others: Hashubah, Ohel, Berekiah, Hasadiah and Jushab-Hesed."

– 1 Chronicles 3:19-20


How curious that with seven brothers to choose from, instead of choosing one of them, Matthew lists the son of Zerubbabel as an unheard of Abiud (1:13). Adding to the fun, at this same point Luke says Zerubbabel's son was not Abiud but Rhesa, another unknown figure (3:27)!

And worse!

Ahead lies a five-hundred year period of Persian, Greek, Ptolemaic, Seleucid, Hasmonaean, Herodian and Roman rule. Yet aside from the stories of Ezra and Nehemiah set in the 5th century BC, until the 2nd century BC nothing is known of the "Davidic line". The changes of regime during this half millennium are seismic and include the rise of two non-Davidic dynasties – the Maccabees and the Herodians.

Because of the frequent revolutions there are serious gaps in the historical record. Temple scrolls, even the temple itself, were destroyed more than once. Clearly, this obliges the evangelist to rely on "divine inspiration" and in Matthew's gospel, descent from Zerubbabel, through Abiud, to Joseph now passes through a series of otherwise unknown names. But for such a long period of time – with its multiple devastations – a mere fourteen names is woefully inadequate, less than three names per century!

But there is a further difficulty. Matthew says there are fourteen generations from the Babylonian exile until the Christ but, bizarrely, the writer has lost count: he lists only thirteen names. Matthew’s genealogy of 42 generations, in the event, turns out to be only 41 generations!

At length we arrive at "And Jacob begat Joseph ... "

A later writer, Luke, found the efforts of Matthew less than adequate to the noble purpose and set about a drastic revision.

... in the sense that all were ancestors of Jesus.

No, they were not, Dr. Osborne

From Abraham to David

Chronicles

Abraham
Isaac
Israel
Judah
Pharez
Hezron
Ram
Amminadab
Nahshon
Salma
Boaz
Obed
Jesse
David

Matthew

1. Abraham
2. Isaac
3. Jacob
4. Judah
5. Perez
6. Hezron
7. Aram
8. Aminadab
9. Nahshon
10. Salmon
11. Booz
12. Obed
13. Jesse
14. David


From David to Josiah

1 Chronicles 3

David
Solomon
Rehoboam
Abia (Abijah)
Asa (Asaph)
Jehoshaphat
Joram (Jehoram)
Ahaziah (Jehoahaz)
Joash (Jehoash)
Amaziah
Azariah (Uzziah)
Jotham
Ahaz
Hezekiah
Manasseh
Amon
Josiah

Matthew 1:6-16

14. David
15. Solomon
16. Rehoboam
17. Abia
18. Asa
19. Josaphat
20. Joram

"and Joram begat Uzziah"

21. Uzziah
22. Joatham
23. Achaz
24. Ezekias
25. Manasses
26. Amon
27. Josias

Luke 3:21-31

David
Nathan
Mattatha
Menna
Melea
Eliakim
Jonam
Joseph
Judah
Simeon
Levi
Matthat
Jorim
Eliezer
Joshua
Er
Elmodam


From Josiah to Salathiel

1 Chronicles

Josiah

Jehoahaz=Shallum
(3 mths only)

Jehoiakim=Eliakim
(609-598)

Jehoiachin=Jeconiah
(3 mths before exile)

Zedekiah(=Mattanyahu)

Salathiel

Matthew 1

27. Josias

"And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon."

28. Jechonias
"And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel."

29. Salathiel

Luke 3

Elmodam

Cosam

Addi

Melchi

Neri

Salathiel (Shealtiel)


From Salathiel to Joseph

1 Chronicles 3

Salathiel
Zerubbabel

Meshullam

Hananiah
Pelatiah
Jesaiah
Rephaiah
Arnan
Obadiah
Shecaniah
Neariah
Elioenai

With the naming of seven sons of Elioenai, the Davidic line written by the "Chronicler" (4th century BC?) ceases at this point.

Matthew 1

29. Salathiel
30. Zerubbabel

31. Abiud
32. Eliakim
33. Azor
34. Sadoc
35. Achim
36. Eliud
37. Eleazar
38. Matthan
39. Jacob

"And Jacob begat Joseph ... " - Matthew 1:16.

40. Joseph
41. Jesus

Luke 3

Salathiel
Zerubbabel
Rhesa
Joannan
Juda
Joseph
Semei
Mattathias
Maath
Nagge
Esli
Naum
Amos
Mattathias
Joseph
Jannai
Melchi
Levi
Matthat
Heli

"... Joseph, which was the son of Heli." – Luke 3:23.

Joseph
Jesus

[Besoeker]

That depends on what you are talking about. There are many light sources throughout the universe. So a distant star may be the primary source of physical light in another area of the universe. In the case of your picture of a sunset on the Earth, it is obviously clear that our Sun is the primary source of all the secondary sources of light in the universe.

But you called it a secondary source.
"making the Sun, Moon, and stars on the fourth day as secondary light sources"
No matter how much you try to wriggle out of it, you contradicted yourself. Plain and simple.

[Hindsite]

But you called it a secondary source.
"making the Sun, Moon, and stars on the fourth day as secondary light sources"
No matter how much you try to wriggle out of it, you contradicted yourself. Plain and simple.

No contradiction. When you consider the whole universe the sun, moon, and stars are secondary light sources. Scientist say there are many stars that are bigger and brighter than our sun. It all depends on the perspective. It is like Einsteins's theory of relativity.

[Besoeker]

No contradiction. When you consider the whole universe the sun, moon, and stars are secondary light sources. Scientist say there are many stars that are bigger and brighter than our sun. It all depends on the perspective. It is like Einsteins's theory of relativity.

On which palnet were Adam and Eve created?

[Hindsite]

On which palnet were Adam and Eve created?

I believe Adam and Eve were created on this planet, the Earth, just like the Holy Bible states.

Praise the Lord.
HalleluYah

[Besoeker]

I believe Adam and Eve were created on this planet, the Earth, just like the Holy Bible states.

Praise the Lord.
HalleluYah

So Gen 1 refers to the earth?

[Hindsite]

So Gen 1 refers to the earth?

Genesis 1 refers to the physical creation and focuses on the physical creation on earth of life forms made from the elements found on this planet, which culminated with the making of mankind.

Praise the Lord.
HalleluYah

[Besoeker]

Genesis 1 refers to the physical creation and focuses on the physical creation on earth of life forms made from the elements found on this planet, which culminated with the making of mankind.

So you accept that it refers to the earth?
The seas, the not quite formed mountains, the worldwide flood, trees, animals, humans...............etc?