contradictions in the bible

[Free]

There are errors and contradictions in Scripture and no serious student of the Bible would deny that. Having said that, the vast majority of contradictions are insignificant, with many not being contradictions at all.

Someone should define "inerrancy" before this topic gets too far along.

 

[follower of Christ]

There are errors and contradictions in Scripture and no serious student of the Bible would deny that.

I think that depends, Free.
I dont see any 'contradictions' at all once we understand the whole.

God is love (1Jn 4:8, 1Jn 4:16).
Love isnt Jealous (1Co 13:4)
God is a Jealous God (Exo 20:5)

Contradiction ?
To some, Id think.

I agree that there are 'contradiction's in the texts. However I dont agree that there are any that are irreconcilable.
And Im a VERY serious student of scripture

 

[vja4Him]

There are errors and contradictions in Scripture and no serious student of the Bible would deny that.

I think that depends, Free.
I dont see any 'contradictions' at all once we understand the whole.

God is love (1Jn 4:8, 1Jn 4:16).
Love isnt Jealous (1Co 13:4)
God is a Jealous God (Exo 20:5)

Contradiction ?
To some, Id think.

I agree that there are 'contradiction's in the texts. However I dont agree that there are any that are irreconcilable.
And Im a VERY serious student of scripture

I would agree. The contradictions in the Bible are only apparent, or alleged. I too am a serious student of the Bible ....

 

[Panin]

There are errors and contradictions in Scripture and no serious student of the Bible would deny that.

I think that depends, Free.
I dont see any 'contradictions' at all once we understand the whole.

God is love (1Jn 4:8, 1Jn 4:16).
Love isnt Jealous (1Co 13:4)
God is a Jealous God (Exo 20:5)

Contradiction ?
To some, Id think.

I agree that there are 'contradiction's in the texts. However I dont agree that there are any that are irreconcilable.
And Im a VERY serious student of scripture

I would agree. The contradictions in the Bible are only apparent, or alleged. I too am a serious student of the Bible ....

Hi brother I had this one hurled at me in an another forum. How would you explain it? I know it's being a little pedantic however it is an apparent obvious contradiction, not alledged.


Did the men with Paul stand or fall?

Acts 9:7 states the men with Paul STOOD
Acts 26:14 states they all FELL to the ground

 

[glorydaz]

Hi brother I had this one hurled at me in an another forum. How would you explain it? I know it's being a little pedantic however it is an apparent obvious contradiction, not alledged.


Did the men with Paul stand or fall?

Acts 9:7 states the men with Paul STOOD
Acts 26:14 states they all FELL to the ground

I'd like to put in my two cents worth, if you don't mind.
When they saw the bright light they all fell down.

At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose,

The Lord told Paul to stand...when he stood, so did the others and stood there, open-mouthed, I'm sure. They may have gotten up quicker than Paul because they weren't blind.

And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

 

[westtexas]

Hi brother I had this one hurled at me in an another forum. How would you explain it? I know it's being a little pedantic however it is an apparent obvious contradiction, not alledged.


Did the men with Paul stand or fall?

Acts 9:7 states the men with Paul STOOD
Acts 26:14 states they all FELL to the ground

I'd like to put in my two cents worth, if you don't mind.
When they saw the bright light they all fell down.

At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose,

The Lord told Paul to stand...when he stood, so did the others and stood there, open-mouthed, I'm sure. They may have gotten up quicker than Paul because they weren't blind.
[quote="Acts 9:3-8":28vuja0y]And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

[/quote:28vuja0y]
So much for that contradiction!!
Westtexas

 

[glorydaz]

So much for that contradiction!!
Westtexas

This is kinda fun...like a game of Bible Trivia.

 

[vja4Him]

Hi brother I had this one hurled at me in an another forum. How would you explain it? I know it's being a little pedantic however it is an apparent obvious contradiction, not alledged.

Did the men with Paul stand or fall?

Acts 9:7 states the men with Paul STOOD
Acts 26:14 states they all FELL to the ground

I'd like to put in my two cents worth, if you don't mind.
When they saw the bright light they all fell down.

At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose,

The Lord told Paul to stand...when he stood, so did the others and stood there, open-mouthed, I'm sure. They may have gotten up quicker than Paul because they weren't blind.
[quote="Acts 9:3-8":29euzg5y]And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

[/quote:29euzg5y]

Seems like a good explanation. Obviously, after they all fell down, they would all have to get back up again, so they could continue on their journey!

 

[Physicist]

A fair challenge

First of all, most "contradictions" are not really contradictions. Just because one account mentions one man and another account mentions 2 men doesn't make it a contradiction. Now if one account said that there was ONLY one man and the other account had 2 men, then that MIGHT be a contradiction...but even then you would have to verify that it was the same event at the same time and at the same place for it to really be a contradiction. There are good, reasonable answers for every alleged "contradiction" in the Bible. One just has to want to know the answers.

Yes, the Bible is riddled with contradictions. Some examples are the one mentioned above, plus the way that Judas died, the time of Jesus' death, the name of Joseph's father, the last words of Jesus, ...and many more.

Can these be reconciled? Certainly, if you want to make a bunch of arbitrary assumptions that are only assumed in order to patch over the contradiction. Almost any contradiction can be reconciled with enough arbitrary assumptions but this means that you have left serious scholarship behind

If they cant be reconcilled, then all our faith is in vein, particulary if the word of God is a contradiction (in any place). There's some serious scholarly advise for you to do a thesis on.

And if you want to be scholarly about it please supply the exact srcipture verses you are alluding too, and we can look at each individual case in a scholarly fashion.

I appologise for my tone, however this is of fundamental importance and relevance to the foundation of the Christian faith.

No offense taken. If I make a scholarly assertion I should be prepared to defend it. So let me accept your fair challenge. However, one fundamental point I would disagree with you is the necessity of Biblical Inerrancy for Christian belief. Millions of Christians do not think that the Bible is inerrant but would object to being called bad Christians.

To avoid wandering into the weeds, lets deal with the contradictions one at a time. Lets start with the one that is probably the best known (and timely for the season), the name of Joseph's father and other contradictions in the Matthew and Luke genealogies. In Luke, the father is Heli, and in Matthew it is Jacob. The names of the grandfathers and subsequent generations are also different until we get to Zerubbabel, son of Salatheil and founder of the Second Temple. However, after Salatheil, the names diverge again.

Now, this contradiction is often reconciled by making several arbitrary assumptions. First, it is usually asserted that, while neither genealogy mentions Mary and both mention Joseph, one or the other is actually Mary's genealogy. Different Apologists make differing choices here, showing that the assumption is completely arbitrary. However, the discrepancy of Zerubbabel's grandfather remains and another arbitrary assumption must be made. The typical one is, in spite of his unusual(non-Hebrew) name, there were two separate Zerubbabels, who just happened to have the same father's name. Want to speculate on the probability of that occurring?

Hence, I defend my hypothesis. The genealogies can only be reconciled by arbitrary assumptions that would not be made except to paper over the contradictions. If, for example, we had only one genealogy, do you think anyone would claim that it belonged to Mary and not Joseph?

 

[glorydaz]

I'd like to put in my two cents worth, if you don't mind.
When they saw the bright light they all fell down.

At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose,

The Lord told Paul to stand...when he stood, so did the others and stood there, open-mouthed, I'm sure. They may have gotten up quicker than Paul because they weren't blind.
[quote="Acts 9:3-8":qq1e4set]And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

Seems like a good explanation. Obviously, after they all fell down, they would all have to get back up again, so they could continue on their journey![/quote:qq1e4set]
Yes, and you notice they fell down before the Lord spoke....when they saw the bright light.
They were standing again when the Lord had finished giving His instructions and told Paul to rise.
They obviously got up to see where the voice was coming from. Since the Lord was speaking to Paul, he waited until he was told. What a wonderful picture of being in the presence of the Lord. I can only imagine the stories they each told around the fire at night. Certainly not an average day. :crazy

 

[Panin]

Hi brother I had this one hurled at me in an another forum. How would you explain it? I know it's being a little pedantic however it is an apparent obvious contradiction, not alledged.


Did the men with Paul stand or fall?

Acts 9:7 states the men with Paul STOOD
Acts 26:14 states they all FELL to the ground

I'd like to put in my two cents worth, if you don't mind.
When they saw the bright light they all fell down.

At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose,

The Lord told Paul to stand...when he stood, so did the others and stood there, open-mouthed, I'm sure. They may have gotten up quicker than Paul because they weren't blind.
[quote="Acts 9:3-8":28k4ywfl]And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

[/quote:28k4ywfl]

Awesome. I love your work

 

[glorydaz]

Awesome. I love your work

Don't quibble with me sista'. :love2

Oops...maybe I should say, "friend".

 

[Panin]

Re: A fair challenge

[
No offense taken. If I make a scholarly assertion I should be prepared to defend it. So let me accept your fair challenge. However, one fundamental point I would disagree with you is the necessity of Biblical Inerrancy for Christian belief. Millions of Christians do not think that the Bible is inerrant but would object to being called bad Christians.

To avoid wandering into the weeds, lets deal with the contradictions one at a time. Lets start with the one that is probably the best known (and timely for the season), the name of Joseph's father and other contradictions in the Matthew and Luke genealogies. In Luke, the father is Heli, and in Matthew it is Jacob. The names of the grandfathers and subsequent generations are also different until we get to Zerubbabel, son of Salatheil and founder of the Second Temple. However, after Salatheil, the names diverge again.

Now, this contradiction is often reconciled by making several arbitrary assumptions. First, it is usually asserted that, while neither genealogy mentions Mary and both mention Joseph, one or the other is actually Mary's genealogy. Different Apologists make differing choices here, showing that the assumption is completely arbitrary. However, the discrepancy of Zerubbabel's grandfather remains and another arbitrary assumption must be made. The typical one is, in spite of his unusual(non-Hebrew) name, there were two separate Zerubbabels, who just happened to have the same father's name. Want to speculate on the probability of that occurring?

Hence, I defend my hypothesis. The genealogies can only be reconciled by arbitrary assumptions that would not be made except to paper over the contradictions. If, for example, we had only one genealogy, do you think anyone would claim that it belonged to Mary and not Joseph?

Great, Im glad you are not offended.

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.

Sadly you have omitted the exact scripture verses in your "Hypothesis", (not very scholarly of you) how about you supply them and we can get down to scholarly brass tacks.

That said, clearly, Mathew opens with the Geneology of Christ are we agreed on that? Luke deals with an entirly different thing. Why? Well because they are intirely different in their intireity. Something that is intirely differnt can not contradict itself. For a start Luke goes all the way back to Adam and God, does Mathew? NO! So is that a contradiction? I think not.

Mathew 1-16 Jacob in turn begat: Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was begotten Jesus: called Christ.

Mathtan in turn begat Jacob (verse 15)

Mark 3: 23: Joseph of Heli. I suggest Helei is the tribe or region, obvioulsy not his father.

Also note that Mathew spells Mathtan as Matthat (is that a contradiction?) in luke 24 saying he is of Levi (the tribe of Levi?) although in Mathew it states Mathtan's father is Eleazar. Whilst Luke doesn't even mention Eleazar, Clearly Luke is not a geneology at all. It is definately not the same thing as Mathew , and therefor can not be even hypothesised as a contradiction.

No contradiction. Begat is used in Mathew, of is used in Luke, of is, in my opinion, the area or region they are from, begat is the father they are from. Because all of the of's are differernt form the begats in which case everyone's father is a "contradition" between Mathew and luke, not just Jospeh.

I find that when one deal with any "so called contradiction" like this, one can deal with them all in the same manner, so in essence unless one wants to waste time, it's not really worth dragging this sort of topic on and on and on.

 

[JohnEboy1983]

number 92 caught my eye, where they give an example of genesis 6:6 where god says that regrets making man. but god knows the future, he knew man would become like this when he created them, why would he regret making them?

At one time I had many questions about this also because to regret or repent is the changing of ones mind about something, as we do when we repent from sin. In the bible it also says God does not change his mind at all. You would come to think it was contradicting itself but instead of putting repent it should more have worded sorry or grieved instead. Nothing repents God where he changes his mind however he may be grieved about it. If God was truly repented about making humanity, we all would no longer exist, however he allowed Noah to continue living on and human life to go on therefore he did not repent in making man or we would not be here right now.

 

[glorydaz]

Re: A fair challenge

No offense taken. If I make a scholarly assertion I should be prepared to defend it. So let me accept your fair challenge. However, one fundamental point I would disagree with you is the necessity of Biblical Inerrancy for Christian belief. Millions of Christians do not think that the Bible is inerrant but would object to being called bad Christians.

To avoid wandering into the weeds, lets deal with the contradictions one at a time. Lets start with the one that is probably the best known (and timely for the season), the name of Joseph's father and other contradictions in the Matthew and Luke genealogies. In Luke, the father is Heli, and in Matthew it is Jacob. The names of the grandfathers and subsequent generations are also different until we get to Zerubbabel, son of Salatheil and founder of the Second Temple. However, after Salatheil, the names diverge again.

Now, this contradiction is often reconciled by making several arbitrary assumptions. First, it is usually asserted that, while neither genealogy mentions Mary and both mention Joseph, one or the other is actually Mary's genealogy. Different Apologists make differing choices here, showing that the assumption is completely arbitrary. However, the discrepancy of Zerubbabel's grandfather remains and another arbitrary assumption must be made. The typical one is, in spite of his unusual(non-Hebrew) name, there were two separate Zerubbabels, who just happened to have the same father's name. Want to speculate on the probability of that occurring?

Hence, I defend my hypothesis. The genealogies can only be reconciled by arbitrary assumptions that would not be made except to paper over the contradictions. If, for example, we had only one genealogy, do you think anyone would claim that it belonged to Mary and not Joseph?

First, I'd like to apologize if I made it sound like you were a bad Christian.
I tend to get defensive over the Bible.

There has been a great deal of study on this, for sure.
To say they're all assumptions because they don't agree may be a stretch.
Matthew and Luke often gave different accounts because they approached the subject with different goals. It was necessary to have the genealogy for Mary and Joseph because Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. So His genealogy had to be traced back to the royal line through Mary and the legal line through Joseph. This verse points out that it was "supposed" that Jesus was the son of Joseph but was, as we know, the son of God.

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

This is a good site from Messianic Jews that can answer a lot of questions some may have.
http://www.messianicassociation.org/a-agf-throne.htm

 

[Panin]

Awesome. I love your work

Don't quibble with me sista'. :love2

Oops...maybe I should say, "friend".

Brother and friend.

 

[westtexas]

Re: A fair challenge

Mark 3: 23: Joseph of Heli. Helei is the tribe or region, not his father.

Panin, he is refering to the lineage in Luke ch 3 where the lineage of Jesus descends from King David thru his son Nathan down to Jesus. Luke 3:23--And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, (KJV)
Most feel that this is the lineage of Mary, and Heli or Heliachim, was the father of Mary. Matthew's lineage descends from King David down through his son Solomon and most feel that this is the lineage of Joseph.
Westtexas

 

[Physicist]

Congratulations

[
No offense taken. If I make a scholarly assertion I should be prepared to defend it. So let me accept your fair challenge. However, one fundamental point I would disagree with you is the necessity of Biblical Inerrancy for Christian belief. Millions of Christians do not think that the Bible is inerrant but would object to being called bad Christians.

To avoid wandering into the weeds, lets deal with the contradictions one at a time. Lets start with the one that is probably the best known (and timely for the season), the name of Joseph's father and other contradictions in the Matthew and Luke genealogies. In Luke, the father is Heli, and in Matthew it is Jacob. The names of the grandfathers and subsequent generations are also different until we get to Zerubbabel, son of Salatheil and founder of the Second Temple. However, after Salatheil, the names diverge again.

Now, this contradiction is often reconciled by making several arbitrary assumptions. First, it is usually asserted that, while neither genealogy mentions Mary and both mention Joseph, one or the other is actually Mary's genealogy. Different Apologists make differing choices here, showing that the assumption is completely arbitrary. However, the discrepancy of Zerubbabel's grandfather remains and another arbitrary assumption must be made. The typical one is, in spite of his unusual(non-Hebrew) name, there were two separate Zerubbabels, who just happened to have the same father's name. Want to speculate on the probability of that occurring?

Hence, I defend my hypothesis. The genealogies can only be reconciled by arbitrary assumptions that would not be made except to paper over the contradictions. If, for example, we had only one genealogy, do you think anyone would claim that it belonged to Mary and not Joseph?

Great, Im glad you are not offended.

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.

Sadly you have omitted the exact scripture verses in your "Hypothesis", (not very scholarly of you) how about you supply them and we can get down to scholarly brass tacks.

That said, clearly, Mathew opens with the Geneology of Christ are we agreed on that? Luke deals with the regions.



Mathew 1-16 Jacob in turn begat: Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was begotten Jesus: called Christ.

Mark 3: 23: Joseph of Heli. Helei is the tribe or region, not his father.

No contradiction. Begat is used in Mathew, of is used in Luke, of is the area or region they are from, begat is the father they are from. Because all of the of's are differernt form the begats in which case everyone's father would is a "contradition" between Mathew and luke, not just Jospeh.

A little scholarly study is in order I feel.

When you can deal with one "so called contradiction" like this, you can deal with them all in the same manner, so in essence unless one wants to waste time, it's not really worth dragging this sort of topic on and on and on.

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

 

[Panin]

Re: Congratulations

[
No offense taken. If I make a scholarly assertion I should be prepared to defend it. So let me accept your fair challenge. However, one fundamental point I would disagree with you is the necessity of Biblical Inerrancy for Christian belief. Millions of Christians do not think that the Bible is inerrant but would object to being called bad Christians.

To avoid wandering into the weeds, lets deal with the contradictions one at a time. Lets start with the one that is probably the best known (and timely for the season), the name of Joseph's father and other contradictions in the Matthew and Luke genealogies. In Luke, the father is Heli, and in Matthew it is Jacob. The names of the grandfathers and subsequent generations are also different until we get to Zerubbabel, son of Salatheil and founder of the Second Temple. However, after Salatheil, the names diverge again.

Now, this contradiction is often reconciled by making several arbitrary assumptions. First, it is usually asserted that, while neither genealogy mentions Mary and both mention Joseph, one or the other is actually Mary's genealogy. Different Apologists make differing choices here, showing that the assumption is completely arbitrary. However, the discrepancy of Zerubbabel's grandfather remains and another arbitrary assumption must be made. The typical one is, in spite of his unusual(non-Hebrew) name, there were two separate Zerubbabels, who just happened to have the same father's name. Want to speculate on the probability of that occurring?

Hence, I defend my hypothesis. The genealogies can only be reconciled by arbitrary assumptions that would not be made except to paper over the contradictions. If, for example, we had only one genealogy, do you think anyone would claim that it belonged to Mary and not Joseph?

Great, Im glad you are not offended.

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.

Sadly you have omitted the exact scripture verses in your "Hypothesis", (not very scholarly of you) how about you supply them and we can get down to scholarly brass tacks.

That said, clearly, Mathew opens with the Geneology of Christ are we agreed on that? Luke deals with the regions.



Mathew 1-16 Jacob in turn begat: Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was begotten Jesus: called Christ.

Mark 3: 23: Joseph of Heli. Helei is the tribe or region, not his father.

No contradiction. Begat is used in Mathew, of is used in Luke, of is the area or region they are from, begat is the father they are from. Because all of the of's are differernt form the begats in which case everyone's father would is a "contradition" between Mathew and luke, not just Jospeh.

A little scholarly study is in order I feel.

When you can deal with one "so called contradiction" like this, you can deal with them all in the same manner, so in essence unless one wants to waste time, it's not really worth dragging this sort of topic on and on and on.

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

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.

 

[Panin]

Re: A fair challenge

Mark 3: 23: Joseph of Heli. Helei is the tribe or region, not his father.

Panin, he is refering to the lineage in Luke ch 3 where the lineage of Jesus descends from King David thru his son Nathan down to Jesus. Luke 3:23--And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, (KJV)
Most feel that this is the lineage of Mary, and Heli or Heliachim, was the father of Mary. Matthew's lineage descends from King David down through his son Solomon and most feel that this is the lineage of Joseph.
Westtexas

Okay, but I doubt very much that Luke is the lineage of Mary. Why? becuase it starts with Jesus ministery, Mary doesnt even warrant a mention.

Im going to post both "lineages side by side.