Talk:Matthew 1:9

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 March 2006. The result of the discussion was Redirect to Matthew 1.

Bible High‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity High‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

VfD Results[edit]

This article has survived a Vote for Deletion. For more details see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses. --Allen3 ^talk July 9, 2005 13:53 (UTC)

Clean-up[edit]

What clean-up is required? Rich Farmbrough 22:10 12 March 2006 (UTC).

Um, it doesn't (at time of tagging) include any citations of scholars, and doesn't explain all of the various Christian and Non-Christian perspectives on the verse in question. I'm not saying that the article is bad, but its nowhere near a full article if it cites one American Protestant. A J Hay 04:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation is a fair comment, I'm not sure what perspectives are on offer (the Zorastrian viewpoint :) , but then I'm not a religious scholar. Rich Farmbrough 12:27 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Missing kings[edit]

I'm utterly confused by this passage. Uzziah and Azariah are the same king. Joash was, according to 1 Chronicles 3 (and every other Old Testament source) the son of Ahaziah, not the son of Uzziah. There is no contradiction. I'm going to remove this material claiming a contradiction. john k 01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly simple

Chronicles
3:10 
And Solomon's son 
was Rehoboam, 
Abia his son, 
Asa his son,
Jehoshaphat his son, 
3:11 
Joram his son, 
Ahaziah his son,      <------ Point a
Joash his son, 
3:12 
Amaziah his son, 
Azariah his son, 
Jotham his son,       <------ Point b
3:13 
Ahaz his son, 
Hezekiah his son, 
Manasseh his son, 
3:14 
Amon his son, 
Josiah his son.

Matthew
1:7
And Solomon begat
Roboam; and Roboam 
begat Abia; and Abia 
begat Asa; 1:8 And Asa begat
Josaphat; and Josaphat 
 
begat Joram; and Joram 
begat Ozias; 1:9 And Ozias   <------ Point a




begat Joatham; and Joatham         <------ Point b 

begat Achaz; and Achaz 
begat Ezekias; 1:10 And Ezekias 
begat Manasses; and Manasses 

begat Amon; and Amon
begat Josias;

Rich Farmbrough 13:34 5 June 2006 (UTC).

Restoring this for now[edit]

Despite the notes above, an AfD indication to redirect is not binding, decisions to merge or redirect are editorial decisions and are always reversable. If it were otherwise, I'd need to go to WP:DRV to contest the first AfD, and that would be ridiculous.

As it stands, this article includes verifiable NPOV information on this verse. We don't blank good information in wikipedia. If you think the information is not so, then please give reasons and then remove it. If you think we should lose this information, then tell me why. If you don't think that there should be an article on this verse, and that the information is best organised in a different form, then you are, of course, free to merge this article with Matthew 1 - I personally will not oppose that. --Doc ^ask? 20:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what part of this article is not covered in Matthew 1 or Genealogy of Jesus and I will gladly merge it. The AFD may not be binding, but because you disagree with it is not a valid reason. kotepho 21:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with this page pointing to Matthew 1, as long as no information is lost. However, most of the information here that directly relates to this verse, its meaning and its textual Greek variants, is not Matthew 1. There is quite a bit of specialist work to be done effecting a good merge. --Doc ^ask? 23:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like minutia to me. kotepho 23:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matthew 1:9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050315220136/http://gallery.euroweb.hu/html/m/michelan/3sistina/6lunette/08/lu08ozi.html to http://gallery.euroweb.hu/html/m/michelan/3sistina/6lunette/08/lu08ozi.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]