HyperGraph, thanks for responding. I'm giving a counter-argument, not so much for you, but for other readers of this thread. I kind of wish someone with a little more enthusiasm had responded to my post...

Originally Posted By: HyperGraph
While this may be commonly held (if I remember correctly) it seems to be a real stretch to me smile


It is commonly held, but I think it's much more than a stretch, as both geneologies mention Joseph by name, and neither mention Mary. Either way, there is an error in the text. i.e. the geneologies contradict each other, or one of them fails to mention that it is the geneology of Mary, and refers to her as Joseph.

It's much, much more probable that the text was written by fallable men (however well intentioned) than by an infallable God.

Originally Posted By: HyperGraph
This is not really a problem when you consider both the era in which this was recorded, ancient mindsets and all of that. It was very common to list only significant names in a genealogy and to skip names of less significance and who was considered significant would be up to the one compiling the list.


Agreed, and I wouldn't expect more from any historical document. But when the claim is made that the document in question is inspired by the Holy Spirit, I find it surprising to find 'different mindsets' involved at all.

Again the point of this was to explain why 'Creationism' was probably not good to teach in a science class, as the Bible is not really a scientifically accurate book. However, as book of moral guidance, it's stature is much higher, and I don't think it should be ignored all together. As a believer, I think God gave us minds to discriminate between what is true and what is false.

See my games here: https://www.indiedb.com/company/michael-klaus-schmidt