And people who believe the following aren't?<quoted text>
Just straight and simple, you're stupid
Dennis wrote this in 1983
A professor of the Bible and Greek and chairman of the department of Biblical education at Cedarville Bible College, attempted to resolve some of the problems related to the Virgin Birth. He alleged, for example: "Joseph and Mary were legally married or betrothed" (Matt. 1:18). She was called "his wife" twice (Matt. 1:20,24). He was called "her husband" (Matt. 1:19)(The Virgin Birth, by Robert Gromacki, p. 76). Obviously, Gromacki doesn't like the idea of believing his alleged Saviour was illegitimate. Of course, what he has done is opt for the Biblical version that suits his needs, a common ploy of apologists. The KJV of Matthew 1:18 says they were "espoused", which Gromacki equates with "being married," while the Modern Language (ML), the LB, the NWT, and the NI versions clearly say "engaged." There are no valid grounds for equating espoused with being married. Even the RSV and the NASB versions say they were betrothed, i.e. engaged. Gromacki uses the word "married." Although Matthew 1:20, 24 in the KJV strongly imply Mary is Josepj's wife, the ML, the LB, the NAS, and the NI versions show she is not his wife. And while the KJV of Matt. 1:19 says Joseph is Mary's husband, the ML and the LB versions versions refer to Joseph as her fiance. As stated earlier, the version people use depends on what they want to prove. Every Christian is putting his/her money on a Biblical version favored by one group of scholars and taking his/her chances. You could be an expert in Greek and Hebrew and still find scholars who would firmly disagree with your translation of many verses.
In trying to explain why Mary referred to Joseph as Jesus' father, Gromacki says, "In public, Mary had to refer to Jesus as Joseph's son in order not to arouse any suspicion about His origin." (Ibid. p. 75). this explanation is pure speculation, since Gromacki couldn't possibly know Mary's motives, and is also alleging the "Blessed Mother" lied. We are to believe the mother of God deliberately told a falsehood.
In a Life Magazine article Robert Coughlan said: "On the other hand, both Gospel writers (Matthew and Luke) give genealogies showing that Jesus was a descendant of King David through the male line-that is, the line of Joseph--an incongruity increased still more by the fact that the genealogies differ." (Life, Dec. 25, 1964, by Robert Coughlan, p. 90). Apologist Gromacki's response to this was: "If both genealogies did record Joseph's physical lineage, then Coughlan was indeed correct; however, no reputable evangelical embraces that position. Coughlan's rejection of the accuracy of the two genealogies was based upon his subjective equation of the two. He nowhere proved that they both belonged to Joseph." (The Virgin Birth, by Gromacki, p.151). Coughlan doesn't need to "prove it." All one needs to do is read the genealogies in Matt.1 and Luke 3 to see they pertain to Joseph. It's stated quite clearly. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of Gromacki. He needs to prove the genealogy in Luke 3 pertains to Mary, which isn't possible unless some unwarranted assumptions are made. Her name never appears once in the entire third chapter of Luke. It's rather difficult to believe a geneaology pertains to someone who isn't even mentioned. Another apologist said: "The reason that Mary is not mentioned in Luke 3 is because she has already been designated the mother of Jesus in several instances." (Answers to Tough Questions, by McDowell and Steward, p. 60). Why would this be of significance? The point at issue is not whether Mary is the mother of Jesus, but whether the genealogy in Luke 3 pertains to Mary.