> From: Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The Fool wrote: > > > >>> 16 Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, > >>> of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. > >> > >> I imagine that the fact that Mary was mentioned in > >> this sentence might be interpreted as Jacob being > >> _her_ father and not Joseph. You know, translation > >> errors from Aramaic to Greek, etc. > > > > You can delude yourself all you want, but it says > > 'father to Joseph'. > > > No, it doesn't. This is the horrible and full of > mistakes King James "translation". We have to get > the 'rig to get the right meaning.
As a matter of fact this was from a westcot and hort based translation. Nowhere was the KJV ever mentioned. You want me to post the aramaic [I have several versions] you are saying? But plain-text would only garble it. I Hate HTML messages. This is a good illustration of what is wrong with religion. When someone who is religious is presented with evidence that what they believe is based on falsehoods, they don't accept the evidence as real. Anything that doesn't reaffirm or support their concept of 'trvth' or knowledge is wrong. This is irrational. You want me to break out my concordances? I have an exhaustive Strong's concordance, and an exhaustive Young's concordance. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
