idk40003 said
Since Jesus technically is not biologically related to David in Matthew’s gospel, even though he is called the son of David, is it possible that Matthew is making a point about David’s kingdom ending, and the Son of God taking over as the new King? Sort of like a reversal of what happened between the time of the judges and Saul or something?

A truly interesting idea, but I don't think this was intended by the author or thus understood by the audience. They did not have our modern sense of genetics. The text emphasizes that Joseph took Mary as his wife and that alone made him the father of Jesus, despite the fact he was also conceived in some mysterious and mythological way by Godn

I have a question for Bart but I wasn’t sure where to ask so I’m just going to put it here.

Go up to the top and click on the RECENT POSTS tab in the menu. That's where Prof Ehrman posts and replies.  He answers questions on topic or not.

Since Jesus technically is not biologically related to David in Matthew’s gospel, even though he is called the son of David, is it possible that Matthew is making a point about David’s kingdom ending, and the Son of God taking over as the new King? Sort of like a reversal of what happened between the time of the judges and Saul or something?

I always thought of it like this: the Davidic lineage was supposed to last forever but it ended. Jesus was David's true successor.

** you do not have permission to see this link **
_Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them)_ by Bart D. Ehrman (2009), 292pp. On 36, 37 ...
Joseph is not Jesus’ father.
But that creates an obvious problem.
If Jesus is not a blood-relation to Joseph, why is it that Matthew and Luke trace Jesus’ bloodline precisely through Joseph?
This is a question that neither author answers: both accounts give a genealogy that can’t be the genealogy of Jesus, since his only bloodline goes through Mary, yet neither author provides her genealogy. ….
Luke explicitly indicates that the family line is that of Joseph, not Mary (Luke 1:23; also Matthew 1:16). ….
There are other problems.
In … Matthew’s genealogy …. from the Babylonian disaster to the birth of Jesus, fourteen generations (1:17).
Fourteen, fourteen, and fourteen-it is almost as if God had planned it this way. ….
The problem is that the fourteen-fourteen-fourteen schema doesn’t actually work.
If you read through the names carefully, you’ll see that in the third set of fourteen there are in fact only thirteen generations.

////////////////////////////
Matthew 1:17 says there are 14, 14, 14 generations.
Greek manuscripts of Matthew’s genealogy mistakenly list 14, 14, 13 generations.
In Aramaic mss. of Matthew’s genealogy, with Mt 1:16’s “gbra” correctly translated as father/guardian, Matthew’s genealogy lists 14, 14, 14 generations.
Mary had a father/guardian named Joseph (plus a husband also called Joseph).
Jesus is a descendant of King David on his biological mother Mary’s side (per Mt’s genealogy), and on his step-dad Joseph’s side (per Lk’s genealogy).

Since Jesus technically is not biologically related to David in Matthew’s gospel, even though he is called the son of David, is it possible that Matthew is making a point about David’s kingdom ending, and the Son of God taking over as the new King? Sort of like a reversal of what happened between the time of the judges and Saul or something?

Steefen said
You are the person who said use NASA as evidence and when NASA supported UFO of God by Chris Bledsoe, using your authority to show I've been right all along, you are STILL being a sore loser.

Nonsense

There is nothing controversial about the original post.

I never said there was. 

But because you cannot stay on track and accept you lost the NASA argument, you take a simple video about a simple word, and a simple presentation about a word you can agree with and STILL make an off-topic issue.
You have to help yourself with an issue of your own creation.

I never argued with you about NASA. You created the off-topic issue with your history of posting nonsensical AI-generated slop videos built on  freaky spiritualist mansions of horror and tomfoolery. 

I did not claim that other beings affect theology and religion. That's a given by so many people.. I looked into it and wrestled with the topic. You and Stephen want to ignore facts and evidence and pilots and government and the military and intelligence industries.

We evaluate and appreciatereal evidence differently. That much is true. 

In a time of prosperity gospels, I'm glad to come across a video that puts an end to people think Christianity leads to a mansion in heaven. 

You really think this video will put an end to the prosperity gospels? From your lips to God's ears!

You didn't make the video first. Bart Ehrman, if he made a video or a post about this, I happened to find this video before he made it abundantly clear.

I'm sorry this was not already abundantly clear to you since time immemorial, but you can't really blame me or Bart for that. 

I did not write Ancient Sumer Literature. I am not the reason Lloyd Pye and others found the Chromosome 2 issue was not caused by Evolution but it matches the claim in at least two tablets from Ancient Sumer that the Homo genus was modified to produce Homo sapiens sapiens. You and Stephen have no rebuttal to that.

It's sad you think a sensible person would need a rebuttal to that. 

Do you think you two are smarter than Gregg Braden and between the two of you, you and Stephen can convince anyone Chromosome 2 fits evolutionary processes? You are blaming me, the INCORRECT person to blame.

I've only chastised you for the ridiculous and nonsensical YouTube videos you've littered this site with over the years

You're probably blaming me for the existence of Mauro Biglino and Paul Wallis. You don't like Ammon Hillman but Hillman is closer to God/Theos appears in the Septuagint which is in the Biglino/Wallis book.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about, except I certainly can't hold you responsible for Ammon. 

You want to blame me for that?

No. How could you be responsible for that?

I do not see how in the world the Hebrews did not have a word for Theos when they knew the Ancient Egyptians had gods. The Hebrews knew about Baal. Hillman said Greek was a more sophisticated language than Ancient Hebrew therefore look to the Hebrew Bible coming from Ancient Greek. Well, the Hebrews had no word for God until Theos was used in the Septuagint?

One would think you would get off your Personal Vendetta Horse and help me out but you're only good for moving my Genesis posts outside of the Genesis forum to get down issues that make a difference.

Your so-called Genesis posts have almost nothing at all relevant to understanding the book of Genesis. That is not a vendetta, just me trying to keep this Readers Form relevant to the purposes for which it was created. 

How can you have henotheism and have no Hebrew synonym (before the Septuagint) for the Greek Theos?

I suspect your Hebrew might be a little rusty. 

Don't think people can't see this.

I vote for disciples concerned about Jesus leaving them and Jesus telling them there is room in his Father's heaven for Jesus' followers to dwell with Jesus and the Father.

You tarnished this post by bringing up side issues, non-issues. 

You are the person who said use NASA as evidence and when NASA supported UFO of God by Chris Bledsoe, using your authority to show I've been right all along, you are STILL being a sore loser.

There is nothing controversial about the original post. I felt proud of that.
But because you cannot stay on track and accept you lost the NASA argument, you take a simple video about a simple word, and a simple presentation about a word you can agree with and STILL make an off-topic issue.

You have to help yourself with an issue of your own creation.

I did not claim that other beings affect theology and religion. That's a given by so many people.. I looked into it and wrestled with the topic. You and Stephen want to ignore facts and evidence and pilots and government and the military and intelligence industries.

#2

In a time of prosperity gospels, I'm glad to come across a video that puts an end to people think Christianity leads to a mansion in heaven. You didn't make the video first. Bart Ehrman, if he made a video or a post about this, I happened to find this video before he made it abundantly clear.

#3

I did not write Ancient Sumer Literature. I am not the reason Lloyd Pye and others found the Chromosome 2 issue was not caused by Evolution but it matches the claim in at least two tablets from Ancient Sumer that the Homo genus was modified to produce Homo sapiens sapiens. You and Stephen have no rebuttal to that. Do you think you two are smarter than Gregg Braden and between the two of you, you and Stephen can convince anyone Chromosome 2 fits evolutionary processes? You are blaming me, the INCORRECT person to blame.

#4

You're probably blaming me for the existence of Mauro Biglino and Paul Wallis. You don't like Ammon Hillman but Hillman is closer to God/Theos appears in the Septuagint which is in the Biglino/Wallis book.

You want to blame me for that? I do not see how in the world the Hebrews did not have a word for Theos when they knew the Ancient Egyptians had gods. The Hebrews knew about Baal. Hillman said Greek was a more sophisticated language than Ancient Hebrew therefore look to the Hebrew Bible coming from Ancient Greek. Well, the Hebrews had no word for God until Theos was used in the Septuagint?

One would think you would get off your Personal Vendetta Horse and help me out but you're only good for moving my Genesis posts outside of the Genesis forum to get down issues that make a difference.

How can you have henotheism and have no Hebrew synonym (before the Septuagint) for the Greek Theos?

Steefen posted

Indeed, much better! Religious sentiment expressed by beautiful voices and accompanied by subtle organ music, pure and unmixed, not at all obscuring educational points. 

Steefen said
His assessment not of my video, the video was posted by The Original Meaning.

Seriously, Steefen, are you really unable to understand that 'your video' in this context obviously denotes the video that you posted here in your first post in your thread? Especially when I had already said "YouTube videos shared by Steefen ... the videos you post ... the great majority of YouTube videos that you post here. ... many of your posted videos". The Original Meaning YouTube channel did not post the video here; you did. You like to accuse others, myself included, of having no reading comprehension, but you're seriously unable to understand the obvious context of my subsequent comment?

His assessment was incorrect.

I think we can better assess that if we know more of the specifics that led to his opinion. Perhaps he was merely turned off, as I was now that I've watched the video, by what I found to be the excessive spirituality and religious sentiment that at times obscured the more important points that could and should have been made or emphasized. Perhaps there were other things he did not like about the video, only Dan could tell us that.

It was educational. ...

I liked the way the educational video placed the verse within its context.

Now that I've taken the time to watch the video, I agree that it made many of the same points that I myself made independently in a little more detail and added more detail regarding the larger context, unnecessary to understand the linguistic issues but delving into the larger theological import of the gospel in tune with the unnecessary religious sentiment (the part I personally don't appreciate in educational contexts).

The negativity is a reflection on those who brought negativity to this post.

My negativity was rooted in having watched so many nonsensical videos you post here about astrology, spirit guides, reincarnation, prophecy, clairvoyance, ancient alien visitors to earth, advanced technologies of lost ancient civilizations, giants, dog-headed people (cynocephaly), remote-viewers in direct communication with aliens defending the earth from evil extra-terrestrials, ghosts, goblins, crop circles, advanced technological structures underneath the pyramids, faked moon landings, etc.

It is wrong to assume this video is slop with no educational value and you egged him on.

Having not watched the video, I did not make that assumption, but after hearing Dan's assessment, I could only imagine what the video might have contain given your penchant for the above mentioned nonsense that pervades most of the YouTube videos you post here. Nor did I egg him on, at least not yet; he has not continued to post here.

I'm sorry you do not appreciate my occasionally warning some new people here about the nature of many of your videos, but as you should already know, many of us here feel that you degrade the site with such nonsense and have even driven some very astute people away. 

Now I will go and listen to your music video. I imagine that will be much more to my liking, though I have already conceded that the previous video indeed made several good points and is very much better than the YouTube videos that you usually post here.

Steefen
His assessment not of my video, the video was posted by The Original Meaning.

His assessment was incorrect. It was educational. The video was coupled by a beautiful performance of the hymn "Abide with me" which has 9.3 MILLION views and 67,000 likes. 

I liked the way the educational video placed the verse within its context.

After 20+ years of studying the Bible. The original post was meaningful to me. The verse did not factor into my book, Historical Accuracy and will not factor into the second edition or version of my book. 

I pay attention to the bible scholars of the NET Bible which confirmed dwelling places in my Father's house. The NRSV also uses dwelling places.

The post, agreeing withh NET and NRSV, is a nice post. The negativity is a reflection on those who brought negativity to this post.

You mentioned Douay-Rheims. I see this:

** you do not have permission to see this link **
In my Father's house there are many mansions. If not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you.

The video explained to look at what that word originally meant. It was informative/educational to know what the word originally meant.

It is wrong to assume this video is slop with no educational value and you egged him on. The content creator, YouTube Channel, The Original Meaning, thought some people might have a mistaken understanding of a verse. I was curious and rewarded with a nice video.

Steefen said
If you have a problem with the video, watch the video.

Again, I cannot have a problem with a video I don't bother to watch. My comment was merely a welcoming one to Dan, letting him know that his assessment of your video was a common one to those of your videos many of us have bothered to watch.

There is a reason why some Bible scholars improve the translation to the conclusion presented in the video.

Of course.

Your questioning is better left to the Bible scholars who agree with the video which explains everything.

My only questions were only addressed to your comments regarding the value of the etymology of the English word 'mansion'. I have not questioned any better translations endorsed by actual scholars.

Your disparaging comments added no value to this particular discussion.

I actually made no disparaging comments regarding your video. Perhaps only Dan might find any value in my welcoming remarks regarding a commonly shared appreciation of his evaluation of many of your posted videos, 'though I suspect many here might also agree with the sentiment. 

I thought you may have already covered this verse in your years of study.  

I have no difficulty whatsoever with the underlying Greek text and would never endorse today the translational tradition going all the way back to Jerome: "in domo patris mei mansiones multae sunt ... et ad eum veniemus et mansionem apud eum faciemus," (think μονή/μένω/manere)* which was already followed in English by some manuscripts of Wycliffe as well as by Tyndale and the Douay-Rheims before it was further popularized by the King James Version. This only goes to show that many supposedly new translations endorsed by scholars often borrow liberally from earlier translations, a point I make frequently. Much better to learn to read the text in the original. But this is not a case of incorrect translation made by Jerome and later by others. It's really an issue of the enduring popularity of the King James Version with many people who are often unaware of the way in which words can subsequently evolve their meaning over the centuries. Meanings that were explicitly clear in context at the time of an earlier translation may no longer hold up for users of that translation centuries later.

*So, you see, the etymology of "mansion," but only when viewed from an evolving historical perspective, can have some indirect utility in this discussion. 

Steefen said
Etymology: the origin of a word and the historical development of its meaning
Steefen:
That is what the video is about. Etymology is relevant to the video.

The etymology of the English word 'mansion'? How is that relevant?

Steefen:
That is what the video is about. Etymology is relevant to the video.

@dansanta2003,
Your comment had no merit. The video is not AI slop. Bible scholars use better translations.

Steefen said
Steefen:
@Robert,
Provide your etymology of mansions.

An etymology of the English word is irrelevant.

Since you want represent the video as incorrect. Let's hear what you have to say.

I don't have the time to watch all of the videos you post, I didn't watch this one, and thus I didn't represent it as incorrect. What I said was that Dan's impression of this video is a "common opinion about the great majority of YouTube videos" that you post here. New visitors to the forum might appreciate being warned about your tendencies.