Biblical Errancy

Luke 3:27-31 NASB-the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of DavidKJV-Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of DavidNIV-the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melki, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David I don't know from what version you copied the Lukan genealogy, but- "Jeconiah (also called Jehoiachin and Coniah) — Assir — Shealtiel — Zerubbabel"- doesn't appear in ANY version I could find. Perhaps my opponent mistakenly mixed the Matthew and Luke genealogies together. At any rate the fact that Luke depicts Jesus' genealogy (without Jeconiah as evidenced above) establishes His genealogical qualification as the Messiah. "Matthew's interest in Jesus' relation to the Old Testament and the Messianic kingdom makes it appropriate that he give Joseph's descent from David through Solomon - a descent that is also Jesus' legal descent - and thus gives him legal claim to the Davidic throne. Because Luke emphasizes the humanity of Jesus, his solidarity with the human race, and the universality of salvation, it is fitting that Luke show his humanity by recording his human descent through his human parent, Mary. His pedigree is then traced back to Adam. The objection that Mary's name is not in Luke's version needs only the reply that women were rarely included in Jewish genealogies; though giving her descent, Luke conforms to custom by not mentioning her by name. The objection that Jews never gave the genealogy of women is met by the answer that this is a unique case; Luke is talking about a virgin birth. How else could the physical descent of one who had no human father be traced? Furthermore, Luke has already shown a creative departure from customary genealogical lists by starting with Jesus and ascending up the list of ancestors rather than starting at some point in the past and descending to Jesus. This view allows easy resolution of the difficulties surrounding Jeconiah (Matt. 1:11), Joseph's ancestor and David's descendant through Solomon. In 2 Sam. 7:12-17 the perpetuity of the Davidic Kingdom though Solomon (vv. 12-13) is unconditionally promised. Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) later was the royal representative of that line of descent for which eternal perpetuity had been promised. Yet for his gross sin (2 Chron.24:8-9), Jeconiah was to be recorded as if childless, and no descendant of his would prosper on the Davidic throne(Jer. 22:30). This poses a dilemma. It is Jeconiah through whom the Solomonic descent and legal right to the throne properly should be traced. Solomon's throne had already been unconditionally promised eternal perpetuity. Yet Jeconiah will have no physical descendants who will prosper on that throne. How may both the divine promise and the curse be fulfilled? First, notice that Jeremiah's account neither indicates Jeconiah would have no seed, nor does is say Jeconiah's line has had its legal claim to the throne removed by his sin. The legal claim to the throne remains with Jeconiah's line, and Matthew records that descent down to Joseph. In 1:16, Matthew preserves the virgin birth of Jesus and at the same time makes clear that Jesus does not come under the curse upon Jeconiah. He breaks the pattern and carefully avoids saying that Joseph(a descendant of Jeconiah) begat, instead he refers to "Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus." In the English translation the antecedent of "whom" is ambiguous. But in the Greek text, "whom" is feminine singular in form and can refer only to Mary who was not a descendant of Jeconiah. As to human parentage, Jesus was born of Mary alone, through Joseph his legal father. As Jesus' legal father, Joseph's legal claim passed to Jesus. But because Jesus was not actually Jeconiah's seed, although of actual Davidic descent through Mary, descendant of Nathan, Jesus escaped the curse on Jeconiah's seed pronounced in Jeremiah (22:30). Thus the problem is resolved." http://www.answering-islam.org... - Look familiar? "Because Mary is a relative of Elizabeth and Elizabeth was of the priestly tribe, then Mary also is of the tribe of Aaron." A Half-Truth FallacyRegarding your Talmud citation. Really?...Seriously? You offer no reference to confirm. You offer no relevance to the discussion. Indeed it is totally irrelevant . Then to say "see…the Talmud does not mention Mary, Jesus, OR Heli!" this CANARD is a blatant "Red-Herring Fallacy.""Luke states that Mary is the cousin of Elizabeth (Luke 1:36) and Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron. (Luke 1:5)." First, the King James translation of the term syngenis as "cousin" (Luke 1:36) is unwarranted and somewhat misleading to those who normally interpret the word to mean "first cousin." The Greek term syngenis simply means "relative" (NKJV, NASB, NIV) or "kinswoman" (ASV, RSV). It is "a general term, meaning ‘of the same family'" (Vincent, 1997). Thus, Mary and Elizabeth may have been first cousins, or they may have been fourth cousins. All we know for sure is that they were kin.Second, Mary and Elizabeth could have been from different tribes and still have been first cousins. It may be that their mothers were sisters. Their mothers could have been from the tribe of Judah or Levi. As commentator Matthew Henry noted: "Though Elisabeth was, on the father's side, of the daughters of Aaron (v. 5), yet on the mother's side she might be of the house of David, for those two families often intermarried, as an earnest of the uniting of the royalty and the priesthood of the Messiah".However Mary and Elizabeth were related, tribal heritage among the descendants of Jacob was passed down through fathers, not mothers (cf. Ruth 4:18-22); children were always of their father's tribe, not their mother's. Thus, Elizabeth and Mary were descendants of Aaron and David, respectively, by way of their fathers' ancestry, and not necessarily of their mothers'.Before I move on I must make sure the viewers do not miss a very important, albeit easily over-looked, feature of my opponent's argument. Please notice that he states correctly that "Mary is a RELATIVE of Elizabeth" above he then states later that "Mary is the COUSIN of Elizabeth". This is known as "Equivocation". A logical fallacy-The arguer uses the ambiguous nature of a word or phrase to shift the meaning in such a way as to make the reason offered appear more convincing. The Fallacy of Equivocation occurs when an equivocal word or phrase makes an unsound argument appear sound.