Jump to content


Regular Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


SeaJay last won the day on June 2

SeaJay had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

148 Excellent

1 Follower

About SeaJay

  • Rank
    Strong Minded
  • Birthday 07/18/1968

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Carpentry, Roleplaying, Astronomy
  • More About Me
    Happily married with three children. l enjoy reading and my favourite food is Italian.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    Christianity (shaky belief)

Recent Profile Visitors

1,010 profile views
  1. Yes, that's what I got from the few articles I read. As I understand it, whilst the human race can be traced back to one female ("Mitochondrial Eve") in Africa, some 200,000 years ago, she wasn't the only female around at that time, and there were many females before her. She is simply the most recent female to have all our genetic make up (for want of a better term). Thanks all for the feedback.
  2. And breathe... www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/no-mitochondrial-eve-not-first-female-species-180959593/
  3. "In 1987, Cann, Stoneking, and Wilson published the results of their study as "Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution." By combining mtDNA sequence data from different human geographic populations and applying the molecular clock hypothesis, Cann, Stoneking, and Wilson traced the modern human gene pool to Africa and a common female ancestor who lived approximately 200,000 years ago. Mass media called this ancestor Mitochondrial Eve or African Eve." https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/allan-charles-wilson-1934-1991 Please forgive my ignorance here, but, is the above saying the entire human race comes from one woman? I've heard we are descended from a "common ancestor" but I didn't think it literally meant all from a single female ancestor. I don't know, I just thought there would be females all over the earth that evolved from ancestors, all over the earth. That quote seems to suggest there was an actual single female at ground zero, somewhere on the earth. Is it saying, literally one female, or were there thousands of females and the human race stems from one of those thousands of females?
  4. I've had a google at it but precious little came up, apart from one website where Christians were debating (with each other) about the veracity of the claim that the Romans would release a prisoner (Barabbas) on some, "annual holiday" (as Richard Carrier called it). Carrier said there is no record outside the NT of this happening, but the above Christian website did pull out a few possible scenarios where this might have happened. If anyone is interested, the website, and possible sources from antiquity, is located here: http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.com/2012/04/would-pontius-pilate-have-released.html I was hoping to read a scholarly secular source on the matter. Does anyone know for one? Thanks all.
  5. I was looking at it from a textual criticism point of view, and wondering if there was an error in the text.
  6. But, I can't accept that such a blatant blunder would be made concerning Christ's genealogy. What I mean to say is, the differing genealogies are so obvious, front, and centre, the discrepancy would have been noticed and corrected. The fact is hasn't, tells me it is not meant to be, so another reason (given above) must be forthcoming.
  7. Thanks for the info pantheory
  8. I think the first suggestion is the best and more logical explanation for the alleged discrepancy concerning Joseph's father (the second explanation is also plausible but wouldn't be my preferred choice). MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. The Jewish levirate law states that when a man dies childless his widow - "shall not marry to another; but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother" (Deuteronomy 25:5). The child of the second marriage is legally the child of the first (Deuteronomy 25:6). Heli died childless. His widow became the wife of his brother Jacob, and Joseph was the offspring of the marriage. Naturally the son of Jacob, but legally the son of Heli. It is likely that Matthew gives the natural descendant and Luke the legal. Or * Matthew: arranged in eleven groups of seven individuals, and Matthew has deliberately shuffled the data specifically in order to fit the schema (it's not a strict genealogy for purposes of identifying descent); individuals are selected in Matthew for theological reasons * Luke: arranged in a simple and pedantic 'son of' genealogy but in reverse so that it ends in Adam, part of an extended theme across three chapters which culminates in the temptation; for Luke the entire point of the exercise is to show that Jesus was the son of God as Adam was, but that Christ succeeded where Adam failed (in Luke, Christ is introduced as the son of God in contrast with Adam, and Christ starts with a victory having been led into a wilderness for temptation and ends with a victory in a garden, whereas Adam started in a garden for temptation, and was driven into a wilderness as a result of failure) Both Matthew and Luke are using genealogical data for a literary purpose, not for a genealogical purpose. Matthew carefully arranges his in a particular order (eleven groups of seven), in order to make his various theological points. Luke similarly uses the genealogical data for his theological purpose, and skips right over Abraham and David without even mentioning Christ as the fulfilment of the Abrahamic and Davidic promises, because he really wants to get to Adam and contrast Christ the son of God who was victorious with Adam the son of God who fell. He also wants to show that Christ, unlike the demi-gods of the myths which his Greek reader Theophilus had worshiped, was solidly real and existed in the world of humans, not the mythical realm of the gods. Since neither Matthew or Luke is interested in providing a strict genealogical lineage of Christ, neither of them are 'more correct'. They're both arranging the data in a way which is useful to their purpose. Matthew and Luke's genealogies are arranged in two completely different manners for two completely different reasons. Both of them are thematic.
  9. Ok thank you for clarifying.
  10. Thanks all for the replies. Very helpful.
  11. The Rosetta Stone is a broken part of a bigger stone slab that has text written in three types of writing (scripts). It allowed experts to learn to read Egyptian hieroglyphs. Do we know if it reveals anything about the Bible, or is that not its function (i.e. it's not recording passages of history); it is just just passages of script that allows the deciphering of hieroglyphs?
  12. And apparently there were other storied in the ANE that were quite similar.
  13. Of course. Good point. Thanks for clarifying.
  14. Not sure what you mean by #1
  15. My thoughts exactly. It's all very, wishy-washy.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.