Lots of names
I'm in the book of 1 Chronicles right now, and wonder if anyone besides me is actually reading and trying to pronounce the lists of geneologies. I'm sure these would mean something to the Jews of, say, 2500 years ago, but 99% of the significance is lost on me. Perhaps this is why Bruce Wilkerson (sp?) yanked the Prayer of Jabez out of context and built a cash cow out of it. He just HAD to jazz up this section of Scripture somehow . . .

Any thoughts as to application for us, today?
Dan, Friday, 7-1-05 4:22 PM
re: Lots of names
I think it's actually an old fashioned baby name finder. Personally, I think Gomer is a good one... ;)

No, I have no idea how this would apply to us today, except for historic research purposes.
Tauna, Wednesday, 7-6-05 9:08 AM
re: Lots of names
I have to admit that this is one of those sections that I'm skimming. I've read (and devised my own pronounciation) these previously, but I really can't find much in it other than curiousity/research.

As for baby names, most of the names would be fairly cruel to inflict on a child. On the other hand, I'm somewhat surprised Dan didn't choose the name of Ham for Grant.
David, Wednesday, 7-6-05 2:22 PM
re: Lots of names
I think the importance of the geneologies, and the lists of returning exiles, and the lists of gifts given by each family and etc, etc, etc. is to put the stories, teachings, and prophecies in their proper historical context. History is in the details - and mostly the boring ones! Having such info available helps give the surrounding stories the ring of truth. I mean, can you imagine some ancient huckster trying to pull the wool over everybody's eyes with his fancy religion sitting down and writing geneologies? :}
As uninspiring as they are, I think without them it would be much harder to establish the veracity of the Bible. Take, for instance, "King Arthur," who - if he existed at all - could have been in the 4th, 5th, or 6th centuries, may or may not have had a father named Uther, and could have had a kingdom (or tribe) in either Wales, Brittain, or somewhere else entirely. I mean, there are many stories about Arthur and his exploits that are told and re-told, but there is very little historic evidence to show any of them to be more than mythological. One would not want to build a religion based on Arthur. King David, on the other hand, can be placed within exact dates and geographical locations. We know who his father was, and we know who his descendants were. And, when one of his decendants was born in his own home town several centuries later and started making a lot of waves, we knew who his ancestors were, and this helped those who were willing know that he really could be who he claimed to be - why do you think two of the gospels start out with geneologies?
Annette, Thursday, 7-7-05 7:55 AM
Reply to This Discussion
Start New Discussion
  Church, Christian, Salvation, Beaverton, Tigard, Lake Oswego, Portland, Oregon, Friends, Quaker, Non-Denominational, Jesus Christ, God, New Testament, NT, Old Testament, OT, Bible, Heaven, Hell, Casual, Evangelical, Intimate, Community