Matthew Makes Another Error

JosephAlward

The 1 Chronicles author lists the descendents of David; some of these, in order, are Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Azariah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh (1 Chronicles 3:10-13 NIV)

The Matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts Uzziah, who he says is Jehoram’s son. (Matthew 1:8-10 NIV)

Thus, at least one of these two authors is wrong, and the Bible is in error.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

pomegranate

>>The 1 Chronicles author lists the descendants of David; some of these, in order, are Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Azariah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh (1 Chronicles 3:10-13 NIV)<<

Isn't it amazing how Mr. Joe doesn't know that "Azariah" is the same individual as "Uzziah?" Someone as well versed in the Bible as he boastfully gloats would surely know such an easily aquired fact such as that, no? The king with two names.

2 Kings 15:1-4
15:1 In the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel, Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah began to reign. 2 He was sixteen years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem fifty-two years. His mother's name was Jecoliah; she was from Jerusalem. 3 He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father Amaziah had done.

2 Chron 26:3-5
3 Uzziah was sixteen years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem fifty-two years. His mother's name was Jecoliah; she was from Jerusalem. 4 He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father Amaziah had done.

Uzziah = Amaziah, same guy.

Same Mother (Jecoliah) who was from the same city Jerusalem
Same Father who was King Amaziah
Same age when began ruling (16)
Same time ruling (52 years)

Also, died of the same God given affliction and had the same son, Jotham:

2 Kings 15:5
5 The LORD afflicted the king (Azariah) with leprosy until the day he died, and he lived in a separate house. Jotham the king's son had charge of the palace and governed the people of the land.

2 Chron 26:21
21 King Uzziah had leprosy until the day he died. He lived in a separate house - leprous, and excluded from the temple of the LORD. Jotham his son had charge of the palace and governed the people of the land.

So Mr. Joe, there's one smacked off your list of mystery names. The Azariah in 1 Chronicles and the Uzziah in Matthew ARE THE SAME GUY.

The rest of your "mystery names" Mr. Joe are as easily defended as the "king with two names" IF you read your Bible. Joe obviously hasn't. Proof in this thread of the Mr. Joe sham is OBVIOUS with the easily obtained FACT of Azariah/Uzziah being the same person and him not knowing it AND him not knowing the Bible shed light on the FACT that shepherds carried two staffs, though he venomously denied that FACT till it was plopped in his face.

Let's see if Joe can find the passages in the Bible that explain quite clearly (as clearly as the king with two names) WHY Matthew's account seems to "step" around some names. Seemingly three but actually four to be exact. There is a ruling name missing in BOTH Chronicles AND Matthew.

If Mr. Joe truly looks, he will find the answer is as simple and plain as the one above regarding the king with two names...

jayhawk1

I love to read the two of you debate bible topics.

Pomegranate,
I don't read the bible, so could you please fill me and others in on the other potentially missing three men? I seem to remember Azariah and Uzziah being discussed as the same person. However, I don't know anything about the others.

"Hand me that whiskey, I need to consult the spirit."-J.F. Rutherford

Jeremy's Hate Mail Hall Of Fame.
http://hometown.aol.com/onjehovahside/ and [email protected]

JosephAlward

Pom writes,

The Azariah in 1 Chronicles and the Uzziah in Matthew ARE THE SAME GUY

I never said that they were not the same. More than two years ago I wrote the article, "Matthew's False Prophetic Pattern," in which I make it clear that Azariah, Uzziah (NIV), and Osias (KJV) are different names for the same person. That article is at the URL

* http://members.aol.com/JAlw/prophetic_pattern.html

I didn't wish to make the argument in my initial post any longer than it needed to be in order to challenge the apologist to explain away the apparent error, so I just left the Uzziah-Azariah identity for the apologist to discover. My argument is not in the slightest weaker just because Matthew only left out three descendents, not four.

I predict that Pom will now try to argue that it was standard practice for gospel writers to jump over generations that weren't important, but he will do so at the risk of being roundly ridiculed, becase all of the men in that genealogy were in the line of descendency from David to Jesus. Surely all of those men were important, were they not? Furthermore, one of the omitted men--Ahaziah--was a KING. Not important enough to be on Matthew's list? That's ridiculous.

Well, if that's not the tired old apologetic that Pom trots out to the race, it will no doubt be equally as amusing.

By the way, the article listed above describes more problems than the ones I've listed with Matthew's genealogy, and explains why Matthew may have deliberately left names off the list in order to fulfill what he thought was a divine pattern.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

pomegranate

Joe's initial claim:

>>The Matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts Uzziah, who he says is Jehoram’s son. (Matthew 1:8-10 NIV)<<

You are a bald faced liar. You say above (italics) Matthew left out FOUR descendents which you include Azariah as a missing descendent. In fact, Azariah IS NOT missing in Matthew, but is in fact Uzziah. So you are lying and being deceptive here to prove your false premise. Also proven by this "cover my ass" statement:

>>so I just left the Uzziah-Azariah identity for the apologist to discover.<<

Yeah right. That's called covering over the truth. Satan does the same thing as you. But then again, what should I expect from an offspring of a viper?

Go find the reason the others were omitted. It's a fact as simple as the king with two names and the Joe Alward with two faces.

When Joe's caught in a lie, pom's gonna fly, cause there ain't no use dealing with a liar.

Moxy

i think matthew was tweaking the names a bit to try and achieve this mystical 14-14-14 relationship which he still did not quite get successfully.

mox

Satanus

Pom

Saying 4 instead of 3 was likely an honest mistake. Even atheists do that, sometimes.

pomegranate

Do you know how to read with comprehension?

>>The Matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above<<

>>I didn't wish to make the argument in my initial post any longer than it needed to be in order to challenge the apologist to explain away the apparent error, so I just left the Uzziah-Azariah identity for the apologist to discover.<<

He admitted he did it ON PURPOSE. If one knows the truth and puposely conceals it with false words, that is a lie.

Even Satan knows that. So, you must be a faux Satan eh?

Seeker

And yet there seem to be those other three missing names that no one has stepped forward to identify.

pomegranate

Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah

They're not missing, they just aren't recorded in Matthew. For good reason.

Matthew Makes Another Error

Share this