Parents vs father

So, if I understand, this right, Mary must have been mistaken, here?

Or had she merely forgotten that Joseph was not the real father of Jesus?

Or maybe she did not know how to address him, while talking to Jesus, being she was an uneducated native of Galilee?

Or maybe it is that she was too culturally bound to say Joseph and I, since she did really know?

Or just maybe is it that one wanting to promote the alleged superiority of the KJV-1869 [while, of course, claiming they are talking about the 1611AV (and without the Apocrypha, to boot), (and since God obviously did not want us to have the original Greek manuscripts of the NT, but preserved it for us while letting the world for 1500 years have to suffer with an inferior text, while apparently generally unbeknownst to us and the church until the 17th Century, then "providing" an inproved textual basis over all previous versions, including some verses directly from the Latin Vulgate of the Roman General and historian, Jerome, others from the Jewish/Roman 'historian', Josephus, and some from the Commentary of Andrew of Caesarea as the basis of some of the NT; mostly on the Masoretic text for the OT, some of which Jesus quoted and some He did not quote from the Hebrew, but more likely the LXX, apparently, ignoring the little detail that the translators of the 1611AV were not as sure of all their own conclusions as some 'scholarly' "wannabe" types are today, and who are willing to elide over the 800+ years of English Translation history from Aldred, Caedmon, Bede, and King Alfred on through Wyclif, Tyndale, Coverdale, Tyndale, 'Bishop's', 'Great', Geneva, et. al.)] is willing to make about any argument that supports such, and ignore any argument, that does not, including this claim, as well. (BTW, Language Cop graded this last sentence as a "D-"!)

It has been ably demonstrated and argued that Joseph was and is, in fact, the father of Jesus, even though he is certainly not the sire of Jesus. Were he or someone through his line, and the line of the Kings, the father of Jesus, or even the mother or father of anyone in Mary's 'blood' line to Jesus, in no way could Jesus claim to ever sit on the throne of David, since God's pronouncement on Jeconiah.

The Messiah King had to be the 'son' of Jeconiah, for this was demanded, all the way back to Genesis; The Messiah King could in no way be (any of) the seed of Jeconiah, for this was decreed in Jeremiah. One of these decrees was just as valid and binding as the other. Messiah had to be the seed of David; as well as the son of David. The attempt to differentiate one vs. another versions due to a phraseology that is or is not the word "father' in Luke 2, is simply wrong. And it does not change anything, nor is it making a claim one way vs. the other as to Jesus' sire. The question of what does the Greek text actually say is a valid one, I agree.

And I happen to be one who is definitely a 'Majority Textist'. But let's not confuse two issues, here, on etextual and one theological. And further, let us not mix up what the thousnads of texts say when given proper 'weight', with what a derived text of Stephanus or Scrivener says.

I would add, since not everyone reads all posts, that my own preference was and still is a New Scofield Reference Edition Bible, printed in 1967, Black Letter Edition, KJV, with some archaic words changed, with wide margin (and 30+ years of unreplacable notes), until my Bible was taken from my cab, some years ago. It also was not replacable, at any cost, that I could find, and I looked over a good portion of Central KY, at every Christian bookstore I could find. I have yet to get deep into eBay, Amazon, or some other modern search vehicles, etc. but intend to shortly.

Just so one will know I am a fan of good translations. But I am not a fan of misstating any case.

Ed

 

I have said MANY times that under both Jewish and Roman law that Joseph was Jesus' legal earthly father because he'd married His mother before He was born.

The whole issue of parenthood was started by one or both of the most off-course KJVOs in the business...either Dr. Lawrence Vance or Terry Watkins. This falsehood appears in their writings along with their other outlandish and just plain STUPID stuff, such as the heretical "seven times purified" hooey, the false "seven church ages" doctrine, and the "triquetra on the cover of the NKJV" nonsense. There are found among the pack of non-truths in the "Dial-A-Lie Ministries" site.

The GREEK uses "pater"(father) and "goneus"(parents) in the verses in question. There was never a prob with calling Joseph the earthly father of Jesus, that I've been able to find in literature until the KJVO myth reared its ugly head.

 

Several of the early Bibles on the good line of Bibles according to the KJV-only view have "his father" at Luke 2:33 including Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, and Bishops'. The 1543 Spanish Enzinas New Testament has "padre" [father] at Luke 2:33. Luther's German Bible has "Vater" [father] at Luke 2:33. Thus, it is likely that Erasmus's Greek text had "father" at Luke 2:33. The Anglo-Saxon (995 A.D.) has "his father" at Luke 2:33.

At Luke 2:43, Tyndale's, Matthew's, and Great Bible have "his father and mother." Geneva, Bishops', and KJV have "his parents" at Luke 2:41 while Tyndale's, Matthew's, Whittingham's, and Great Bible have "his father and mother," and Coverdale's Bible has "his elders." A few Old Latin manuscripts are said to have the reading "Joseph and Mary" at Luke 2:41. At Luke 2:27, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Whittingham's, and Great Bible have "the father and mother" while Coverdale's has "the elders." Geneva, Bishops', and KJV have "the parents" at Luke 2:27.

John 1:45 in the KJV:
Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

 

More hooey, Askjo...all trash intended to support your erroneous views...this bunk doesn't deserve an answer as it is just more garbage...

 

If Askjo insists on being literal in that way then Joseph cannot be Jesus' father because the Bible clearly states "Jesus Christ, the son of David..." (Mt. 1:1, and many other references) :smilewinkgrin:

 

The "parents vs. father" thing is one that certain people love to use to belittle some Bible versions, but when the same criteria is used to show their own favorite Bible version makes the same "mistake" then that is entirely a differdnt matter...

 

I agree it's not a mistake, either in the KJV or NIV. The mistake was made by some goofy KJVO authors who stopped at Luke 2:33 & began to shout, "We've found a big error in the MVs! They Deny Christ's deity by calling Joseph His FATHER!" Problem is, they failed to read further in their KJVs to Luke 2:41 & 48, to see the KJV does the VERY SAME THING!

Now, just WHY does the KJV do what its homeboys call 'heresy' in other versions? Because that's the way the GREEK reads, & the AV men correctly translated it!

Sorry, KJVOs, ya can't POSSIBLY win this one! The Greek, your own fave version, and both Jewish & Roman law of the time are against you. Time to move on to yer next excuse.

 

robycop3, what is the scripture reference you would use to prove that Joseph and Mary were married before His birth?

It states she is Joseph's "espoused wife". Espoused in English here is "mnesteuo" in Greek meaning promised in marriage, or betrothed. Wife in English here is the Greek word which can mean a woman of any age and of any marital status (married, unmarried, widow).

Some folks would equate espousal with marriage (I do not). I think that Luke is revealing a distinction.

I think its very fair to assume the timing is very short between verse 5 and verse 6 and that there is no opportunity for a wedding between "being great with child" and "the days were accomplished that she should be delivered".

When did Joseph and Mary get officially married? I have found no verse to describe a wedding or ever referring to them as husband and wife. Their relationship seems to always be in terms of parenting, or gives their proper names.

Shortly after the birth story the Gospel writer has Joseph taking "the young child and his mother" to Egypt and returning (four occurrances in Mt. 2:13,14,20,21). Mother in English is "meter" in Greek which means exactly what we mean by that word. Unfortunately, it does not state "your wife and the child" or something similar. Joseph almost disappears from scripture after these early events.

Joseph is alive when Jesus is twelve but almost certainly dead when Jesus is 33 (at the cross Jesus turns the care of Mary over to the beloved disciple probably indicating no living husband). Joseph's death is not recorded either.

I do think they got married (they were good Jews and had other children, so I assume they were married). But later, the Pharisees virtually accuse Jesus of being of illegitimate birth. Why would they say that if the marriage had been legally complete at the time of His birth?

(I don't want to get to far off track, but this is a subject I am interested in)

 

Simple answer, Franklin:

Matthew 1:24And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,25but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

SURELY no baptist believes JESUS was born OUTTA WEDLOCK ! ? ! ?

 

And it DOESN'T, unless ya twist the Scriptures like Silly Putty.

 

Luke wrote that Mary called Joseph His father, and Jesus said, "Dont you know that I had to be doing My Father's business?" He did NOT correct Mary; Scripture sez He was subject to her and Joseph & went home with them.

NONE of that is against any doctrine OF Jesus or ABOUT Jesus. At any rate, GOD caused it to become SCRIPTURE.

 

This is quite silly, Askjo, as your KJVO defenses usually are. But I cannot be truthfully accused of not answering questions, a nonaction which would bring me down to the same level as most KJVOs. So, here ya go!

Askjo:Ok, look closely at what Mary said. Did she say, “your parent and I….”? Let’s check modern versions on Luke 2:48. NIV said NO! NASB said NO! ESV said NO! New KJV said NO! The KJV said NO!

Neither did she say "Joseph and I"!

Think with me for 2 different letters:

When I write a letter to YOUR parents, should I write down, “Dear father and mother,….?

It could be, "Dear Cranston and Greta" or "Mr & Mrs. Roby".

On other hand, when I write a letter to MY parents, should I write down, “Dear father and mother,…?

Which one is right?

Both.

Another example:

When you called your father, will you yell, “Parent, parent!”

Or

When you called your father, will you yell, “Father, father!”

Yes....or, "Dad".

Which one is right?[/i]

"Father, father", of course.

Now, lemme ask YOU one...Did Mary say "JOSEPH AND I SEARCHED..."or,"Your FATHER and I searched..."?

 

And Luke quoted her. Big deal.