one of my 'serious' bibles (moffat) gives Matt.Ch1 v.16 as

quote:and Joseph (to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed)the father of Jesus,who is called 'Christ'(my italics)

my question is simply :why does he translate it it thus?

I'm not quite sure what exactly you are asking but if i am understanding your question, then my answer is at the very bottom of the post:

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

one of my 'serious' bibles (moffat) gives Matt.Ch1 v.16 as

and Joseph (to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed)the father of Jesus,who is called 'Christ'(my italics)

my question is simply :why does he translate it it thus?



these are the comparisons of the diff. translations that i have (minus a few off the other disc and my NIV). The HOT and the JPS obviously dont have an entry. And the GNT GNT-V are going to show up as nonsense, since TOTSE doesnt use Greek letters, so at the bottom i'll include the Romanized unaccented translation:

Mat 1:16

(ALT) and Jacob fathered Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, the One being called Christ ["the Anointed One"].

(ASV) and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

(BBE) And the son of Jacob was Joseph the husband of Mary, who gave birth to Jesus, whose name is Christ.

(CEV) (SEE 1:12)

(Darby) and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

(DRB) And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

(ESV) and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.

(GNT) **8127;**921;**945;**954;**969;**768;**946; **948;**949;**768; **949;**787;**947;**949;**769;**957;**957;**951;** 963;**949; **964;**959;**768;**957; **8127;**921;**969;**963;**951;**768;**966; **964;**959;**768;**957; **7940;**957;**948;**961;**945; **924;**945;**961;**953;**769;**945;**962;, **949;**787;**958; **7975;**962; **949;**787;**947;**949;**957;**957;**951;**769;** 952;**951; **8127;**921;**951;**963;**959;**965;**834;**962; **959;**788; **955;**949;**947;**959;**769;**956;**949;**957;** 959;**962; **935;**961;**953;**963;**964;**959;**769;**962;.

(GNT-V) **953;**945;**954;**969;**946; **948;**949; **949;**947;**949;**957;**957;**951;**963;**949;** 957; **964;**959;**957; **953;**969;**963;**951;**966; **964;**959;**957; **945;**957;**948;**961;**945; **956;**945;**961;**953;**945;**962; **949;**958; **951;**962; **949;**947;**949;**957;**957;**951;**952;**951; **953;**951;**963;**959;**965;**962; **959; **955;**949;**947;**959;**956;**949;**957;**959;** 962; **967;**961;**953;**963;**964;**959;**962;

(HCSB) and Jacob fathered Joseph the husband of Mary, who gave birth to Jesus who is called the Messiah.

(HNV) Ya`akov became the father of Yosef, the husband of Miriam, from whom was born Yeshua, who is called Messiah.

(HOT)

(JPS)

(KJV+) And1161 Jacob2384 begat1080 Joseph2501 the3588 husband435 of Mary,3137 of1537 whom3739 was born1080 Jesus,2424 who3588 is called3004 Christ.5547

(KJVA) And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

(LITV) and Jacob fathered Joseph, the husband to be of Mary, out of whom Jesus was born, the One called Christ.

(MKJV) And Jacob fathered Joseph, the husband to be of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.

(MRC) And Ya’akov fathered Yosef, the husband of Miriam, by whom was born Yeshua, Who is called Messiah.

(YLT) and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was begotten Jesus, who is named Christ.

RUA-- 16. Iakoob de egenneesen ton Iooseef ton andra Marias, ex hees egenneethee Ieesous ho legomenos Christos.



My answer is Joseph is the father by extention of marriage (step-dad). i'm citing Thayer's and Strong's (repectively):

G1080

gennao**772;

Thayer Definition:

1) of men who fathered children

1a) to be born

1b) to be begotten

1b1) of women giving birth to children

2) metaphorically

2a) to engender, cause to arise, excite

2b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone

2c) of God making Christ his son

2d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ’s work

Part of Speech: verb

A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a variation of G1085

Citing in TDNT: 1:665, 114

Strong's

gennao**772;

ghen-nah'-o

From a variation of G1085; to procreate (properly of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively to regenerate: - bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring.

u know technically u can argue that god raped mary so is it ok 2 rape

quote:My answer is Joseph is the father by extention of marriage (step-dad). i'm citing Thayer's and Strong's (repectively):

so why,my fellow coffee swiller, does the scripture not just simply say that? ie 'and joseph was the step dad of jesus'?

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

so why,my fellow coffee swiller, does the scripture not just simply say that? ie 'and joseph was the step dad of jesus'?



Because it's doubtful that back in the times of Christ the title Step-Father existed.

I think he was more or less considered Joseph's son by most--

Remember not many believe he was indeed the son of God at the time.

-Val

quote:Because it's doubtful that back in the times of Christ the title Step-Father existed.

so you trying to tell me the that the cultures that gave us the greatest works of literature and art ever(ie jews,romans and greeks) couldn't have expressed the concept of a 'step dad'???

oh come on..that has to be one of the weakest arguements ever .

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

so why,my fellow coffee swiller, does the scripture not just simply say that? ie 'and joseph was the step dad of jesus'?

I'm guessing here, but i think it has to do (mostly) with the patrilineal (sp?) tradition of that society. Lineage, although passed on through the mother (old polish/blonde joke comes to mind--female says, "i'm not sure its mine"), is determined by the father; and so, the rights of the father are passed on.

I know there is debate as to the two different geneologies of Jesus being mary's and/or joseph's line. But i think this is why they are both there.. to affirm that Jesus is David's descendent, no matter the point of view of the lineage.

Background on me, to help illustrate what i'm trying to say:

My biological dad died a few months before i was born. When my mom remarried, they asked me (i was 4) if i wanted to call him "daddy" or John. When i said "daddy", he adopted me.

For all practical purposes, he is my dad. He and i both see it as father/son, not 'step-dad'/'step-son'. And i see my siblings as brother and sister, not half..and they,me as well.

Of course he would need to provide evidence for it.

But considering how tweaky they were about marriage, and lineage, I could believe that step-father didn't exist. Hell, it might have existed in one form or another as an insult.

Hmm, maybe Joseph was Jesus's real dad and God was the step father. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

I'm guessing here, but i think it has to do (mostly) with the patrilineal (sp?) tradition of that society. Lineage, although passed on through the mother (old polish/blonde joke comes to mind--female says, "i'm not sure its mine"), is determined by the father; and so, the rights of the father are passed on.

so all the fathers listed here were step dads??!

"1:2 Abraham was the father2 of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 1:3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah (by Tamar), Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, 1:4 Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, 1:5 Salmon the father of Boaz (by Rahab), Boaz the father of Obed (by Ruth), Obed the father of Jesse, 1:6 and Jesse the father of David the king.

David was the father of Solomon (by the wife of Uriah3), 1:7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa,4 1:8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, Joram the father of Uzziah, 1:9 Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 1:10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon,5 Amon the father of Josiah, 1:11 and Josiah6 the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon. "

*sticks tongue out at you* you can do much better than that. an obvious case of coffee deficiency.



btw my family history is similar expect my biological father didn't die.



let me rephrase my original question. why does moffat (and some other scholarly bibles) disagree with all the translations you listed? why does it clearly state that joseph was JC's dad?

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

so all the fathers listed here were step dads??!

"1:2 Abraham was the father2 of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 1:3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah (by Tamar), Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, 1:4 Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, 1:5 Salmon the father of Boaz (by Rahab), Boaz the father of Obed (by Ruth), Obed the father of Jesse, 1:6 and Jesse the father of David the king.

David was the father of Solomon (by the wife of Uriah3), 1:7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa,4 1:8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, Joram the father of Uzziah, 1:9 Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 1:10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon,5 Amon the father of Josiah, 1:11 and Josiah6 the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon. "

*sticks tongue out at you* you can do much better than that. an obvious case of coffee deficiency.



btw my family history is similar expect my biological father didn't die.



let me rephrase my original question. why does moffat (and some other scholarly bibles) disagree with all the translations you listed? why does it clearly state that joseph was JC's dad?

I'll start with your restatement:



I dont know lol but atleast i understand what you were going for now...lol.

Now, as to the coffee deficiency: ya, i usually only drink coffee when i've the day off, and then only until the first pot is emptied... after that, its on to Mt. Dew.. average about (2) two-liter bottles a day (whether a working day or day off)-- i think my dentist must almost have his second yacht paid off, from my teeth alone lol. Thank goodness for my job's excellent insurance benifits (although, damn insurance companies are dwindling the coverage and asking for more money too boot).

It's funny, even though i have loved coffee most of my life (mom and me lived with gramma and grampa before mom remarried.. and grampa would always get yelled at by mom and gramma for sharing his coffee..i remember that, even though i was 4 or so..), while i was single i hardly even made any, and basically only drank it at resturants. But since my wife drinks it, i try to make sure a pot is brewed.. either by myself or getting one of the slaves... errr, kids to make some...

Now, just a small response about the lineages :

I didnt look real close at ALL the ones on the list, but some were actual 'dads' (abraham>issac, david>solomon, etc.), and i think i remember reading that the way they looked at it, was, even a granddad or great-great etc. grand dad, was still considered a 'dad'.. but i'm not sure if i remember that correctly, and for now, i have the "honey do" list to work on.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

so you trying to tell me the that the cultures that gave us the greatest works of literature and art ever(ie jews,romans and greeks) couldn't have expressed the concept of a 'step dad'???

oh come on..that has to be one of the weakest arguements ever .

Upon thinking about my post about an hour after I posted it I was sorry I wasnt at a computer to delete it.

I was sadly mistaken and appologize for adding such dribble to the discussion.

-Val

quote:Originally posted by Valmont:

Upon thinking about my post about an hour after I posted it I was sorry I wasnt at a computer to delete it.

I was sadly mistaken and appologize for adding such dribble to the discussion.

-Val

don't sweat it mate. i've posted some absolute drivel before. it goes with being on &totse. sometimes mr.brain goes walk abouts.

This is actually rather interesting.

quote:Originally posted by Shaokhano:

u know technically u can argue that god raped mary so is it ok 2 rape

That would require penetration, which did not occur.

Also, as a servant of the most high God, Mary was obedient, and would have done whatever He asked.

Knowing this, it was not against her will to become impregnated.

As a matter of fact, she enjoyed this bit of luck: "And the nation's will call me blessed."

Nice try, schmuck.

The Complete Jewish Bible says this:

"Ya'akov was the father of Yosef, the husband of Miryam, from whom was born the Yeshua who was called the Messiah."

Then later...

1:20 - "But while he was thinking about this, an angel of Adonai appeared to him in a dream and said, 'Yosef, son of David, do not be afraid to take Miryam home with you as your wife; for what has been conceived in her is from the Ruach HaKodesh.'"

Ruach HaKodesh - hagios pneuma (greek)

Strong's reference 40 and 4151

Translates to Holy Spirit ( most holy thing of the wind )

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 07-03-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The Complete Jewish Bible says this:

"Ya'akov was the father of Yosef, the husband of Miryam, from whom was born the Yeshua who was called the Messiah."

Then later...

1:20 - "But while he was thinking about this, an angel of Adonai appeared to him in a dream and said, 'Yosef, son of David, do not be afraid to take Miryam home with you as your wife; for what has been conceived in her is from the Ruach HaKodesh.'"

Ruach HaKodesh - hagios pneuma (greek)

Strong's reference 40 and 4151

Translates to Holy Spirit ( most holy thing of the wind )





so why does a 'serious' bible say different?

I cannot begin to know why one Bible says one thing, while another says something different.

I don't know the translator of your "serious" Bible, but I had read extensively about the translator of my "silly" Bible.

I referenced the Greek for you, and apparently that's not good enough.

So, please...continue reading your "serious" Bible, that is apparently more reliable than God's purpose.

quote:Originally posted by Shaokhano:

u know technically u can argue that god raped mary so is it ok 2 rape

You know, really you can't. An angel of the Lord appeared unto Mary and told her what was to be done in her, and she said, "Let it be done unto me."

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I cannot begin to know why one Bible says one thing, while another says something different.

I don't know the translator of your "serious" Bible, but I had read extensively about the translator of my "silly" Bible.

I referenced the Greek for you, and apparently that's not good enough.

So, please...continue reading your "serious" Bible, that is apparently more reliable than God's purpose.



whoa ,ease up there girl! you seem to have totally missed the point of what i was asking.

i simply asked if anyone knew the reason for the difference between the translations. that you don't is fair enough.

i cannot recall refering to your bible as 'silly', if i did then that was very wrong of me .

stop assuming every time i post that its a direct satanic attack on your faith.

it's not.

trust me, if i wanted to attack your faith i would do a much better job than just posting slightly obscure bible trivia questions.

[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 07-03-2005).]

*lol*

Well, you have repeatedly referenced your own Bible as being "serious", so I concluded that you meant to infer all others, especially mine, was "inferior" to yours.

I apologize for that assumption.

I don't think you are satanic, at all.

You have presented some very serious, honorable questions. You can back up your shiznit, too.

It's commendable, and more than I can say for most here.

What ARE you, anyway ? Christian ?

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

*lol*

Well, you have repeatedly referenced your own Bible as being "serious", so I concluded that you meant to infer all others, especially mine, was "inferior" to yours.

I apologize for that assumption.

I don't think you are satanic, at all.

You have presented some very serious, honorable questions. You can back up your shiznit, too.

It's commendable, and more than I can say for most here.

What ARE you, anyway ? Christian ?

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)



oh i see. did you not notice i always wrote it 'serious'(in speech marks)? it was just meant to indicate that it was a bible more of interest to scholars than for,perhaps, daily devotion.

what am i?

a christian? if you mean the biblical definition of do i accept jesus as god's Christ then yeah i'm a christian.

A scholar is defined as someone who is "A learned person."

I am a scholar of the Bible, since I am learned on the subject. It seems that you are still saying that those who do not have a 'serious' Bible like yours cannot be learned (a.k.a. A Scholar).

My Bible is fit to be studied, as it is God's word...regardless of whether or not it has footnotes. I study the Bible with many resources, so I don't think that whether or not my Bible has footnotes in it or not is the qualifier for it being a 'serious' Bible.

I DID notice the quotations around the word 'serious'. That is why it stuck out to me...you kept putting emphasis on that word, so it appeared that you were trying to drive home a point.

perhaps i should better explain what i mean by 'serious'.

if i am going to debate a point of scripture with someone then i would show him the courtesy of using a bible acknowledged to be accurate and as free from doctrinal bias as possible (for example i would NOT turn up with the 'New World' translation nor the Douay).it also helps prevent me making a fool of myself...although i tend to do that anyway.

two examples of such bibles i would use would be the NEB and the Zurcher, both have reputations of high accuracy in their respective languages.

i would hesitate to describe myself as either learned or a bible scholar.i'm just a gadgee who's learnt some stuff over the years.





[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 07-03-2005).]