contradictions in the bible

[westtexas]

Panin, if you would like please start another thread on the "lineage of Christ" or whatever you want to call it.
P.S. Edited to add--I agree with you that there is no contradiction in the Bible, I think when we all talk about it you'll feel like I do that the lineage in Matthew is that of Joseph and the lineage in Luke is that of Mary
Westtexas

 

[Panin]

Mat 1.1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Luke: Which was of Enos, which was of Seth, which was of Adam, which was of God.

Mat 1:2
Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

Luke: Which was of Mathusala, which was of Enoch, which was of Jared, which was of Maleleel, which was of Cainan,

Mat 1:3
And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;

Luke: Which was of Cainan, which was of Arphaxad, which was of Sem, which was of Noe, which was of Lamech,

Mat 1:4
And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;

Luke: Which was of Saruch, which was of Ragau, which was of Phalec, which was of Heber, which was of Sala,

Mat 1:5
And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

Luke: Which was of Jacob, which was of Isaac, which was of Abraham, which was of Thara, which was of Nachor,

Mat 1:6
And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her [that had been the wife] of Urias;

Luke: Which was of Aminadab, which was of Aram, which was of Esrom, which was of Phares, which was of Juda,

Mat 1:7
And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;

Luke: Which was of Jesse, which was of Obed, which was of Booz, which was of Salmon, which was of Naasson,

Mat 1:8
And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;

Luke: Which was of Melea, which was of Menan, which was [the son] of Mattatha, which was [the son] of Nathan, which was [the son] of David,


Mat 1:9
And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;

Luke: Which was of Simeon, which was of Juda, which was of Joseph, which was of Jonan, which was of Eliakim,


Mat 1:10
And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;

Luke: Which was of Jose, which was of Eliezer, which was of Jorim, which was of Matthat, which was of Levi,


Mat 1:11
And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

Luke: Which was of Melchi, which was of Addi, which was of Cosam, which was of Elmodam, which was of Er,


Mat 1:12
And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

Luke: Which was of Joanna, which was of Rhesa, which was [the son] of Zorobabel, which was [the son] of Salathiel, which was of Neri,


Mat 1:13
And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

Luke: Which was of Maath, which was of Mattathias, which was of Semei, which was of Joseph, which of Juda,


Mat 1:14
And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

Luke: Which was of Mattathias, which was of Amos, which was] of Naum, which was of Esli, which was [of Nagge,


Mat 1:15
And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

Luke: Which was of Matthat, which was of Levi, which was of Melchi, which was of Janna, which was of Joseph,


Mat 1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ

Luke: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was of Heli,


So to the nuclear physisist, one can clearly see there is more "contradtion" than the father of Jospeh.
They are two differnt things. Not a contradiction. What a waste of time.

That said. I concede I was wrong thinking they where regions. My bad, but no where near as bad as your bad.

 

[Panin]

Panin, if you would like please start another thread on the "lineage of Christ" or whatever you want to call it.
P.S. Edited to add--I agree with you that there is no contradiction in the Bible, I think when we all talk about it you'll feel like I do that the lineage in Matthew is that of Joseph and the lineage in Luke is that of Mary
Westtexas

I have posted it here for now. You could be right but I doubt it. The gospels are all about the different sides of Christ, not Mary. The Man, the King, the Mesiah, the God.

 

[Hawkins]

Now send 2 reporters to Iraq for a war event independently. If they come with the same casualty reported with the exact number, they could be the liars. If they both report the event sincerely and independently, they are expected to come with different casualty results. And their reports can be accepted as the truth, whether the casualty 'contradicts' with each other is not the point. And the 2 reports can well be the testimony of a historical event.

 

[westtexas]

Panin, if you would like please start another thread on the "lineage of Christ" or whatever you want to call it.
P.S. Edited to add--I agree with you that there is no contradiction in the Bible, I think when we all talk about it you'll feel like I do that the lineage in Matthew is that of Joseph and the lineage in Luke is that of Mary
Westtexas

I have posted it here for now. You could be right but I doubt it. The gospels are all about the different sides of Christ, not Mary. The Man, the King, the Mesiah, the God.

I agree, the gospels are all about the different sides of Christ. We all agree that Christ was born of a virgin and her name was Mary. Is this not a side of Christ that would be recorded?
Westtexas

 

[Panin]

Panin, if you would like please start another thread on the "lineage of Christ" or whatever you want to call it.
P.S. Edited to add--I agree with you that there is no contradiction in the Bible, I think when we all talk about it you'll feel like I do that the lineage in Matthew is that of Joseph and the lineage in Luke is that of Mary
Westtexas

I have posted it here for now. You could be right but I doubt it. The gospels are all about the different sides of Christ, not Mary. The Man, the King, the Mesiah, the God.

I agree, the gospels are all about the different sides of Christ. We all agree that Christ was born of a virgin and her name was Mary. Is this not a side of Christ that would be recorded?
Westtexas

As I said, you could be right. Im open for you to prove it to me.

One could argue that as Christ was born of a virgin supernatutally via the Holy spirit we have no need of human lineages. Although I accept that they are there to show the Royal lineage of King David. I dont really know why that is neccessary, since we all agree that Christ is God.

It would not really bother me if Christ chose to be born of a prostitute. Certainly Mary was a virgin I have no doubt of that, but she was recorded in historic records outside of the bible as accused of sleeping with a Roman soldier. I think the names are Tutilian and Celsus, form memory.

 

[westtexas]

Mat 1.1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Luke: Which was of Enos, which was of Seth, which was of Adam, which was of God.

Mat 1:2
Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

Luke: Which was of Mathusala, which was of Enoch, which was of Jared, which was of Maleleel, which was of Cainan,

Mat 1:3
And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;

Luke: Which was of Cainan, which was of Arphaxad, which was of Sem, which was of Noe, which was of Lamech,

Mat 1:4
And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;

Luke: Which was of Saruch, which was of Ragau, which was of Phalec, which was of Heber, which was of Sala,

Mat 1:5
And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

Luke: Which was of Jacob, which was of Isaac, which was of Abraham, which was of Thara, which was of Nachor,

Mat 1:6
And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her [that had been the wife] of Urias;

Luke: Which was of Aminadab, which was of Aram, which was of Esrom, which was of Phares, which was of Juda,

Mat 1:7
And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;

Luke: Which was of Jesse, which was of Obed, which was of Booz, which was of Salmon, which was of Naasson,

Mat 1:8
And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;

Luke: Which was of Melea, which was of Menan, which was [the son] of Mattatha, which was [the son] of Nathan, which was [the son] of David,


Mat 1:9
And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;

Luke: Which was of Simeon, which was of Juda, which was of Joseph, which was of Jonan, which was of Eliakim,


Mat 1:10
And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;

Luke: Which was of Jose, which was of Eliezer, which was of Jorim, which was of Matthat, which was of Levi,


Mat 1:11
And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

Luke: Which was of Melchi, which was of Addi, which was of Cosam, which was of Elmodam, which was of Er,


Mat 1:12
And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

Luke: Which was of Joanna, which was of Rhesa, which was [the son] of Zorobabel, which was [the son] of Salathiel, which was of Neri,


Mat 1:13
And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

Luke: Which was of Maath, which was of Mattathias, which was of Semei, which was of Joseph, which of Juda,


Mat 1:14
And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

Luke: Which was of Mattathias, which was of Amos, which was] of Naum, which was of Esli, which was [of Nagge,


Mat 1:15
And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

Luke: Which was of Matthat, which was of Levi, which was of Melchi, which was of Janna, which was of Joseph,


Mat 1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ

Luke: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was of Heli,


So to the nuclear physisist, one can clearly see there is more "contradtion" than the father of Jospeh.
They are two differnt things. Not a contradiction. What a waste of time.

That said. I concede I was wrong thinking they where regions. My bad, but no where near as bad as your bad.

Panin, you are right, these are 2 totally different lineages. Matthew goes from King David-Solomon down To Jacob-Joseph-Christ. And Luke goes from King David-Nathan down to Heli-Joseph-Christ. Again, there is no contradiction, it is just the lineage of 2 different people.
Westtexas

 

[Panin]

Mat 1.1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Luke: Which was of Enos, which was of Seth, which was of Adam, which was of God.

Mat 1:2
Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

Luke: Which was of Mathusala, which was of Enoch, which was of Jared, which was of Maleleel, which was of Cainan,

Mat 1:3
And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;

Luke: Which was of Cainan, which was of Arphaxad, which was of Sem, which was of Noe, which was of Lamech,

Mat 1:4
And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;

Luke: Which was of Saruch, which was of Ragau, which was of Phalec, which was of Heber, which was of Sala,

Mat 1:5
And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

Luke: Which was of Jacob, which was of Isaac, which was of Abraham, which was of Thara, which was of Nachor,

Mat 1:6
And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her [that had been the wife] of Urias;

Luke: Which was of Aminadab, which was of Aram, which was of Esrom, which was of Phares, which was of Juda,

Mat 1:7
And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;

Luke: Which was of Jesse, which was of Obed, which was of Booz, which was of Salmon, which was of Naasson,

Mat 1:8
And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;

Luke: Which was of Melea, which was of Menan, which was [the son] of Mattatha, which was [the son] of Nathan, which was [the son] of David,


Mat 1:9
And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;

Luke: Which was of Simeon, which was of Juda, which was of Joseph, which was of Jonan, which was of Eliakim,


Mat 1:10
And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;

Luke: Which was of Jose, which was of Eliezer, which was of Jorim, which was of Matthat, which was of Levi,


Mat 1:11
And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

Luke: Which was of Melchi, which was of Addi, which was of Cosam, which was of Elmodam, which was of Er,


Mat 1:12
And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

Luke: Which was of Joanna, which was of Rhesa, which was [the son] of Zorobabel, which was [the son] of Salathiel, which was of Neri,


Mat 1:13
And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

Luke: Which was of Maath, which was of Mattathias, which was of Semei, which was of Joseph, which of Juda,


Mat 1:14
And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

Luke: Which was of Mattathias, which was of Amos, which was] of Naum, which was of Esli, which was [of Nagge,


Mat 1:15
And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

Luke: Which was of Matthat, which was of Levi, which was of Melchi, which was of Janna, which was of Joseph,


Mat 1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ

Luke: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was of Heli,


So to the nuclear physisist, one can clearly see there is more "contradtion" than the father of Jospeh.
They are two differnt things. Not a contradiction. What a waste of time.

That said. I concede I was wrong thinking they where regions. My bad, but no where near as bad as your bad.

Panin, you are right, these are 2 totally different lineages. Matthew goes from King David-Solomon down To Jacob-Joseph-Christ. And Luke goes from King David-Nathan down to Heli-Joseph-Christ. Again, there is no contradiction, it is just the lineage of 2 different people.
Westtexas

Thank you brother God bless you, but God is right, not me.

 

[glorydaz]

Panin, if you would like please start another thread on the "lineage of Christ" or whatever you want to call it.
P.S. Edited to add--I agree with you that there is no contradiction in the Bible, I think when we all talk about it you'll feel like I do that the lineage in Matthew is that of Joseph and the lineage in Luke is that of Mary
Westtexas

LOL You Texans talk funny, and I totally agree.

Matthew told Joseph's story, and he wrote Joseph's genealogy.
Luke's was from Mary's side, and he wrote hers.
He's the one who spoke of Mary being a virgin, and said Joseph was "supposedly" the father.
Mary had to have the royal line and the priestly line. Women couldn't be listed, so they used Joseph's name. Heli was Mary's father, it's even in the Talmud, and early church documents. Anyway, she also is descended from Nathan, rather than Solomon so avoided that one King Jahochim, I forget his name right now, that no son of his would ever sit on the throne. Mary's has it all, but her name on the form.

 

[wavy]

Re: A fair challenge

First off, the millions of "Christians" who have come to the conclusion that the bible is not inerreant are lazy in my opinion, millions of "christians" are just agnostics with a bible.

No, those Christians just have a more sophisticated understanding of their faith that's not afraid to face the facts. Fear and myopia is not faith. Combined they are stupidity.

Finis,
Eric

 

[wavy]

Re: Congratulations

I wonder where Panin would locate the region called 'God'. Adam was from there.


Finis,
Eric

Congratulations! I thought I had seen all the Apologist assumptions related to this contradiction but you seem to have invented a new one. Of course, its false and easily refuted, but definitely original.

Find any reputable translation that does not translate the Lukan list as 'son of'. Since we know some of the connections are definitely father-son (e.g. Nathan, son of David) to say that it refers to regions is, frankly, silly. Please find on the map the region of 'Zerubbabel'. Also, how does the 'region' of Heli become 'of' Matthat. Are you going to create a new region or tribe for each generation?

Well, it was a good try on your part but I think you will have better luck with saying one of them belongs to Mary.

Best Regards,

Physicist

 

[follower of Christ]

Re: A fair challenge

First off, the millions of "Christians" who have come to the conclusion that the bible is not inerreant are lazy in my opinion, millions of "christians" are just agnostics with a bible.

No, those Christians just have a more sophisticated understanding of their faith that's not afraid to face the facts. Fear and myopia is not faith. Combined they are stupidity.

Finis,
Eric

Sorry friend but your assessment is simply one of the unbeliever who cannot and will not understand agreeing with the conclusions of many 'christians' who are lazy and who dont want to take the time to actually harmonize the scriptures.

 

[glorydaz]

Re: Congratulations

I wonder where Panin would locate the region called 'God'. Adam was from there.


Finis,
Eric

I wonder where you can locate some manners. :type

 

[wavy]

Re: A fair challenge

Sorry friend but your assessment is simply one of the unbeliever who cannot and will not understand agreeing with the conclusions of many 'christians' who are lazy and who dont want to take the time to actually harmonize the scriptures.

Harmonization is irrelevant objectively and therefore methodologically. The real work one puts in comes down to uncovering the truth, whatever the results...not defending presuppositions. I know you don't accept or understand this now, but hopefully one day you will.


Finis,
Eric

 

[Panin]

Re: A fair challenge

First off, the millions of "Christians" who have come to the conclusion that the bible is not inerreant are lazy in my opinion, millions of "christians" are just agnostics with a bible.

No, those Christians just have a more sophisticated understanding of their faith that's not afraid to face the facts. Fear and myopia is not faith. Combined they are stupidity.

Finis,
Eric

Then you will know that Lord hates a proud and haugty look too.

 

[Physicist]

Re: Congratulations

I have re-edited some of the things I said earlier, have another look. In my version of th new testament , the Ivan Panin version, both are used, begat in Mathew and of in Luke, they are two different things. NOT THE SAME.

So if you want to be accurate you need to point out that it is all differnt not just the alledged differences in the father of Joseph.

Also if you cant be bothered putting the scriptures you are referring too, then its a waste of time debating with you. Luke has nothing to do with Mary's geneology, unless of course you want to conclude that Joseph is Marys father as well as her husband. Thats a good one mate.

At least you will agree that the major translations of Luke Chapter 3 use 'son of''

Luke 3:24

KJV
Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

NIV
the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, ?the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph

American Standard
the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

English Standard
the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

And, as I pointed out, we know from other sources the father-son relationship, e.g. Nathan was the son of David, and Zerubabel was the son of Salatheil. None of these names can be identified as a region (find Zerubabel on the map) and they could only refer to a tribe by the founding father, e.g. all the descendants would be from the branch of Jesse or the House of David.) Trying to use what can only be called a highly unusual translation of the Greek would fall into my category of arbitrary, and unlikely, assumptions.

 

[follower of Christ]

Re: A fair challenge

Harmonization is irrelevant objectively and therefore methodologically.

Oh please.
Try this modernized sense of logic with someone on whom it may work.

Courtrooms harmonize data ALL the time, as does science, when there are two seemingly conflicting pieces of information.

Where you come up with this nonsense is beyond me, wavy.

 

[ProphetMark]

Panin, you are right, these are 2 totally different lineages. Matthew goes from King David-Solomon down To Jacob-Joseph-Christ. And Luke goes from King David-Nathan down to Heli-Joseph-Christ. Again, there is no contradiction, it is just the lineage of 2 different people.
Westtexas

Did Jesus have 2 fathers then, both called Joseph, one Joseph being the son of Jacob and one Joseph being the son of Heli? They're supposed to both be the genealogy of Jesus aren't they? How can they be totally different lineages and yet not a contradiction?

 

[glorydaz]

Panin, you are right, these are 2 totally different lineages. Matthew goes from King David-Solomon down To Jacob-Joseph-Christ. And Luke goes from King David-Nathan down to Heli-Joseph-Christ. Again, there is no contradiction, it is just the lineage of 2 different people.
Westtexas

Did Jesus have 2 fathers then, both called Joseph, one Joseph being the son of Jacob and one Joseph being the son of Heli? They're supposed to both be the genealogy of Jesus aren't they? How can they be totally different lineages and yet not a contradiction?

Mary's name could not be on the lineage because she was a woman. They always used the man's name.
Because Mary's lineage needed to be given, as Joseph was not the biological father (God was), Luke gave her line through to King David (royal line), and Levi (priestly line). Heli was Mary's father....instead of using Mary's name, they had to put Joseph in her spot. It was done with others, too, not just Joseph and Mary. It's the same Joseph on both, but the one in Luke is in place of Mary. Same way women couldn't own property not that long ago. It was always put in the husband's name.

 

[Panin]

Re: Congratulations

I have re-edited some of the things I said earlier, have another look. In my version of th new testament , the Ivan Panin version, both are used, begat in Mathew and of in Luke, they are two different things. NOT THE SAME.

So if you want to be accurate you need to point out that it is all differnt not just the alledged differences in the father of Joseph.

Also if you cant be bothered putting the scriptures you are referring too, then its a waste of time debating with you. Luke has nothing to do with Mary's geneology, unless of course you want to conclude that Joseph is Marys father as well as her husband. Thats a good one mate.

At least you will agree that the major translations of Luke Chapter 3 use 'son of''

Luke 3:24

KJV
Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

NIV
the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, ?the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph

American Standard
the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

English Standard
the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

And, as I pointed out, we know from other sources the father-son relationship, e.g. Nathan was the son of David, and Zerubabel was the son of Salatheil. None of these names can be identified as a region (find Zerubabel on the map) and they could only refer to a tribe by the founding father, e.g. all the descendants would be from the branch of Jesse or the House of David.) Trying to use what can only be called a highly unusual translation of the Greek would fall into my category of arbitrary, and unlikely, assumptions.

You have ignored the fact that they are two intirely differnt lineages, therfor no contradicition. Moving on. I will make an arbitary assumption that you are a disinformation specialist. However based on the evidence, it isn't that arbitary.