In the Name of Allah the Beneficent, the Merciful

[Al B. Sure!]

test

Oh... why is it different from html commands with [] brackets?

[Thoth]

[Heraclitus]

http://www.cracked.com/article/234_t...orbidden-love/

Pretty funny.

[N35t0r]

because it's UBB code, not HTML?

HTML (some tags at least) should still work though.

[N35t0r]

You mustnt take everything anything you read on Apolytonthe internet seriusly kotletas

Now fixed for real.

[N35t0r]

Also, it's spelled seriously.

Seriously, real browses come with built-in spelling correctors.

[Heraclitus]

Seriously, I have the spell check set to my native language.

[Heraclitus]

Anyway English has a retarded spelling system.

Edit: Oh silly me implying there was a system at all.

[N35t0r]

Seriously, it's trivial to change it.

[Heraclitus]

Seriously, this site isn't the only one I'm on right now.

[ColdWizard]

Also, it's spelled seriously.

Seriously, real browses come with built-in spelling correctors.

Really real browsers come with built-in typo detectors.

[notyoueither]

Also, it's spelled seriously.

Seriously, real browses come with built-in spelling correctors.

[Kidlicious]

Are you speaking of Rut, grandmother of David? And why not literary? What makes you think it isn't? I agree not everything is literally meant in the Bible, but the genealogy certainly is not the top contester for that.

For one it's different in the Gospel according to Matthew. Atleast one can't be right. So why have a factually inaccurate record? It means that it's not suppose to be factually accurate. It's suppose to mean something.

[Nikolai]

No it's not. It traces two different lines.

See Got Questions.org

Question: "Why are Jesus' genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different?"

Answer: Jesus' genealogy is given in two places in Scripture: Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-38. Matthew traces the genealogy from Jesus to Abraham. Luke traces the genealogy from Jesus to Adam. However, there is good reason to believe that Matthew and Luke are in fact tracing entirely different genealogies. For example, Matthew gives Joseph's father as Jacob (Matthew 1:16), while Luke gives Joseph's father as Heli (Luke 3:23). Matthew traces the line through David's son Solomon (Matthew 1:6), while Luke traces the line through David's son Nathan (Luke 3:31). In fact, between David and Jesus, the only names the genealogies have in common are Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27).

Some point to these differences as evidence of errors in the Bible. However, the Jews were meticulous record keepers, especially in regard to genealogies. It is inconceivable that Matthew and Luke could build two entirely contradictory genealogies of the same lineage. Again, from David through Jesus, the genealogies are completely different. Even the reference to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel likely refer to different individuals of the same names. Matthew gives Shealtiel's father as Jeconiah while Luke gives Shealtiel's father as Neri. It would be normal for a man named Shealtiel to name his son Zerubbabel in light of the famous individuals of those names (see the books of Ezra and Nehemiah).

Another explanation is that Matthew is tracing the primary lineage while Luke is taking into account the occurrences of “levirate marriage.” If a man died without having any sons, it was tradition for the man's brother to marry his wife and have a son who would carry on the man's name. While possible, this view is unlikely as every generation from David to Jesus would have had a “levirate marriage” in order to account for the differences in every generation. This is highly unlikely.

With these concepts in view, most conservative Bible scholars assume Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), though David’s son Nathan. There was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” and Joseph would have been considered a son of Heli through marrying Heli's daughter Mary. Through either line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, “so it was thought” (Luke 3:23).

[Al B. Sure!]

I'd like to point out that tracing a genealogy through the mother's side is not unusual contrary to the statement made in Nikolai's quote. The Jews traced descent matrilineally and the Romans practiced avunculism (descent through mother's brother)