From: John Burgeson (burgythree@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Mar 04 2003 - 13:15:18 EST
Don wrote: "It appears to me that the missing individual is Uriah. While he
may not have been in a direct line with Jesus, as the "in-death" step-father
of Solomon... ."
Uriah was what? What in the world is an "in death" step-father?
Uriah was Bathsheba's first husband. Long dead and buried before Solomon was
conceived. I can see no relationship, nor does that phrase itself hold
anything more than (possibly) a technical meaning.
But I will note this as yet another ad hoc explanation of the Matthew error.
Because it cannot be proven that it is incorrect. And that's all an ad hoc
explanation needs.
BTW, there is another (similar) ad hoc explanation which asserts that the
writer of Matthew deliberately left out of the count one particularly evil
guy (Jehoiakim?) in the list of 41 because he was particularly cursed by God
and therefore it was not PC writing in those days to include his name. But
since everyone knew he was there, they would see the 41 and add his name
mentally, thus 42 -- no error. I think Ruckman uses this in his defense of
the KJV as inspired.
Burgy (17 poor ad hocs do not reinforce one another)
www.burgy.50megs.com
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Mar 04 2003 - 13:17:01 EST