hmm. . .
I'm feeling that my posting is standing on it's own legs just fine.
As for the August 04 Addendum to rule #11, you be right, I didn't read it and I don't feel that someone who is honestly trying to have a forthright debate should need to study the rules of a forum like he was about to take the bar exam.
Where did I imply that a generation was three months? Matthew seemed to be concerned with genealogy - and that seems to have a lot to do with who is the father of who. Yes there were multiple rulers, but the point I'm making has to do with the number of descendants. I've re-read the intro to Matthew a few times and I don't see any concern with the order of the kings of Israel or Judah, what he counts is father to son genealogy. I only mention the royal liniage as a means of discounting Matthew's records. I never claimed to mention every ruler of either kingdom, I only sought to point out errors in in text. I'd say that's where the crux of the arguement lies.
I'm sorry if I seem sarcastic, but how can I draw attention to what seem to be glaring inaccuracies within the bible without quoting some of what I see to be a simplistic view of this text? This forum does operate on the premise that the bible is the literal word of God and that it has as much potential for literal interpetation today as it had two thousand years ago when it was written? Is that not your position?
I certainly don't wish to appear snide, so I will cease here.
BTW, Matthew, author of the gospel, I don't think the distinction between jew and greek is all tha savvy in the historical context. I'd prefer to spend what time I have on this forum debating the validity of a particular form of biblical perfection, but I'm not prepared to just yield to you that statement about Matthew.