Does Athiesm have valid claims? Please advise

[Physicist]

While I don't wish to be critical, the above statement shows lack of understanding of modern biology. The argument from ignorance ("I don't understand it. Therefore it is wrong.") is a fallacious argument. Cells don't 'decide' anything. Evolution, i.e., e change in a population's inherited traits from generation to generation, is a well established scientific fact. It was recognized even before Darwin. The brilliance of his Theory was explaining this evolution. As in any theory. it made predictions which were then tested. For example, we should not find rabbit bones in the same geological strata as trilobyte fossils; and we don't. Human DNA should be more closely related to apes than lemurs, and it is. There are literally thousands of such examples. You may choose to reject his Theory for religious reasons but recognize that by doing so you have placed yourself in the scientifically illiterate camp with such fellow-travelers as the Flat-earth Society.

I think that many of us would agree that the "facts" are consistent with the theory of evolution. And let me nuance this a bit - the facts are consistent with "unguided evolution". But I suggest that the facts are also consistent with a "guided" evolution model - a model where some agency is "directing" things. So there is a sense in which deciding to go with either one involves a measure of faith Just to spare you the time, I am aware of Occam's razor. And I am also prepared to argue that, in spite of the naive and often fallacious way some fundamentalists will argue the point, there is no inconsistency at all with incorporating "divine design" into a scientific description of the world.

I agree. But wouldn't the result be closer to Deism than traditional Christianity?

 

[AAA]

I think that many of us would agree that the "facts" are consistent with the theory of evolution. And let me nuance this a bit - the facts are consistent with "unguided evolution". But I suggest that the facts are also consistent with a "guided" evolution model - a model where some agency is "directing" things. So there is a sense in which deciding to go with either one involves a measure of faith Just to spare you the time, I am aware of Occam's razor. And I am also prepared to argue that, in spite of the naive and often fallacious way some fundamentalists will argue the point, there is no inconsistency at all with incorporating "divine design" into a scientific description of the world.

Drew,

You can always claim 'divine design" for absolutely anything.

We understand how lightening works very well now, but if one were inclined, one could still believe that Zeus manipulates electrons in the atmosphere to cause it.

The question boils down to what evidence one has for 'divine design'. I'm curious to know what you consider "divine' to entail here, and what you'd consider evidence of 'divine design'.

AAA

 

[Packrat]

Have a safe and fun vacation.

It turned out to be pretty good. I apologize for taking so long in my reply. I've been up to some business in my real life and when I haven't been I've just been generally lazy. But I figured I'd reply this side of March.

The only way I have seen people do it thus far involved using completely arbitrary assumptions, i.e. assumptions that are only made to patch the discrepancies. For example, it is sometimes claimed that one or the other genealogy belongs to Mary although neither says Mary and both say Joseph. [...] Also, this one arbitrary assumption by itself is not sufficient to reconcile the two lists as further difficulties arise with Zerrubabel's grandfather and further 'assuming' is required.

1. The idea that one genealogy refers to Joseph's line and the other to Mary's is upheld first off by Luke 1:27. Both genealogies branch from David. Joseph here is shown to be a descendant of David, so it is logical to assume one of them refers to Joseph's line.

2. Since there is no mention of Mary's brothers (I would assume they'd at least be mentioned at the execution of Jesus if her sister was) and only one of her sister it is logical to assume that she had no brothers. She could not have married into the tribe of Judah from another tribe. Her father's inheritance would have passed on to her and her sister as in Numbers 36:5-9. Therefore, one tribe's inheritance would've become part of Judah's since Mary's inheritance would've come under the possession of her husband. This was unlawful, so we can logically assume Mary was of the tribe of Judah - just like her husband.

3. The Koine Greek text of Luke 3:23-24 does not read, "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age being as was supposed the son of Joseph the son of Heli [...]" It reads, "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age being as was supposed the son of Joseph of Eli [...]" Since Koine Greek did not have commas or parenthesis (nor innitially any punctuation) some people choose to read it as, "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed the son of Joseph, of Eli [...]" So the passage in Greek only says that Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph and may in fact imply that he was "of Eli" - the closest male ancestor to him since he had no biological father. This passage does not necessitate the interpretation that Jesus was the son of Joseph and that Joseph was the son of Heli. So Luke 3:23-24 makes a distinction between Jesus' supposed heritage through Joseph and his real heritage through Eli. It is logical then to assume that Luke's genealogy is referring to Mary's line since Jesus had but two parents and this one may very well exclude Joseph through implication.

4. Any implication that Mary was of another tribe because she was related to the Levitical Cohen Elisabeth just doesn't stick. Luke 1:36 does not necessitate that Mary had to be of the tribe of Levi because her relative Elisabeth was. The word sometimes translated here as "cousin" can also mean "relative" or "member of the same race." The angel gives special significance to the word by using it to describe Elisabeth. We may logically assume it should be translated as "cousin" or "relative." Translating it as "member of the same race" just doesn't seem worthy of mention by an angel in this context. The Complete Jewish Bible (the one I often prefer because of its cultural insight) translates the word as "relative." This makes sense if Elisabeth's family line was from Judah but then married into Levi and hence Elisabeth became "of the daughters of Aaron" through birth from a once-Judaic woman now-turned-Levitical and a Levitical man.

5. The Jeconiah (i.e. Jehoiachin) mentioned in the Matthew genealogy has Josiah as his father. However, the cursed King Jehoiachin (i.e. Jeconiah) has Jehoiakim as his father. It is doubtful if these two Jeconiahs are the same individual because no further fathers are listed and there is nothing to tie them together. Even if they were the same, Jesus was Joseph's legal son, showing his legal right to the throne of David. There is no intrinsic problem from the genealogies of coming under the curse of Jeconiah's (i.e. Jehoiachin's) seed and hence not being eligible to the throne of David since Jesus would not be of Jeconiah's seed (i.e. not biologically related to Jeconiah through Joseph).

6. Luke's (i.e. Mary's) genealogy has Neri in place of Jeconiah. This, however, does not contradict the laws of the time. To summarize, Shealtiel has both Neri and Jeconiah as his father. Zerubbabel has Shealtiel as his father in both genealogies. Rhesa and Abiud both have Zerubbabel as their father, since this Zerubbabbel does not appear to be the same Zerubbabel whose grandfather was cursed King Jeconiah. Without arbitrarily assuming that this is contradictory we could explore a number of possibilities within the legal and cultural climate of the time. One potential is levirate marriage; another is adoption from some other means.

7. Because not all of Zerubbabel's children seem to be listed in one place does not necessitate this to be a conflicting account of his family line. See 1 Chronicles 23:9-10 which lists the sons of Shimei (a different Shimei than in the genealogies) back-to-back in two separate groups. We can conclude (i.e. assume) either of two distinct possibilities here: These are two different Shimeis or his children were grouped according to separate purposes. But far be it from us to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible contradicts itself so blatantly here.

I'm not sure how arbitrary these assumptions and facts are since they are based on research into the culture. In fact I believe it to be as much an assumption if not more to glance at the genealogies and just assume that they contradict one-another. I've shown how they can not contradict one-another, and I've even supported my claims with Scriptural evidence within a cultural context. It may be a Theory, since there are some things left to our imagination, but I believe it to be a sound one. Any claim to contradictions, however, would be pure speculation that a lack of information or insight automatically condemns the Scriptures. In America we do not say, "Guilty until proven innocent," and thus do not conclude that a lack of information in a particular case is automatically incriminating.

 

[Physicist]

Have a safe and fun vacation.

It turned out to be pretty good. I apologize for taking so long in my reply. I've been up to some business in my real life and when I haven't been I've just been generally lazy. But I figured I'd reply this side of March.

The only way I have seen people do it thus far involved using completely arbitrary assumptions, i.e. assumptions that are only made to patch the discrepancies. For example, it is sometimes claimed that one or the other genealogy belongs to Mary although neither says Mary and both say Joseph. [...] Also, this one arbitrary assumption by itself is not sufficient to reconcile the two lists as further difficulties arise with Zerrubabel's grandfather and further 'assuming' is required.

1. The idea that one genealogy refers to Joseph's line and the other to Mary's is upheld first off by Luke 1:27. Both genealogies branch from David. Joseph here is shown to be a descendant of David, so it is logical to assume one of them refers to Joseph's line.

Luke 1:27 says that Joseph was of the house of David, something both gospels agree upon.. How does this make one of the genealogies apply to Mary? She is never mentioned.

2. Since there is no mention of Mary's brothers (I would assume they'd at least be mentioned at the execution of Jesus if her sister was) and only one of her sister it is logical to assume that she had no brothers. She could not have married into the tribe of Judah from another tribe. Her father's inheritance would have passed on to her and her sister as in Numbers 36:5-9. Therefore, one tribe's inheritance would've become part of Judah's since Mary's inheritance would've come under the possession of her husband. This was unlawful, so we can logically assume Mary was of the tribe of Judah - just like her husband.

There are a whole lot of assumptions here just to say that Mary was from the tribe of Judah. Seems easier to just assume she was from Judah.

3. The Koine Greek text of Luke 3:23-24 does not read, "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age being as was supposed the son of Joseph the son of Heli [...]" It reads, "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age being as was supposed the son of Joseph of Eli [...]" Since Koine Greek did not have commas or parenthesis (nor innitially any punctuation) some people choose to read it as, "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed the son of Joseph, of Eli [...]" So the passage in Greek only says that Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph and may in fact imply that he was "of Eli" - the closest male descendant to him since he had no biological father. This passage does not necessitate the interpretation that Jesus was the son of Joseph and that Joseph was the son of Heli. So Luke 3:23-24 makes a distinction between Jesus' supposed heritage through Joseph and his real heritage through Eli. It is logical then to assume that Luke's genealogy is referring to Mary's line since Jesus had but two parents and this one may very well exclude Joseph through implication.

No, the author of Luke has The Holy Spirit as Jesus' real father. Hence, the supposed son text.

4. Any implication that Mary was of another tribe because she was related to the Levitical Cohen Elisabeth just doesn't stick. Luke 1:36 does not necessitate that Mary had to be of the tribe of Levi because her relative Elisabeth was. The word sometimes translated here as "cousin" can also mean "relative" or "member of the same race." The angel gives special significance to the word by using it to describe Elisabeth. We may logically assume it should be translated as "cousin" or "relative." Translating it as "member of the same race" just doesn't seem worthy of mention by an angel in this context. The Complete Jewish Bible (the one I often prefer because of its cultural insight) translates the word as "relative." This makes sense if Elisabeth's family line was from Judah but then married into Levi and hence Elisabeth became "of the daughters of Aaron" through birth from a once-Judaic woman now-turned-Levitical and a Levitical man.

A standard trick of the Apologist is to look for unusual definitions to words whose common definition fits more logically. The clear reading is that Elizabeth and Mary are cousins.

5. The Jeconiah (i.e. Jehoiachin) mentioned in the Matthew genealogy has Josiah as his father. However, the cursed King Jehoiachin (i.e. Jeconiah) has Jehoiakim as his father. It is doubtful if these two Jeconiahs are the same individual because no further fathers are listed and there is nothing to tie them together. Even if they were the same, Jesus was Joseph's legal son, showing his legal right to the throne of David. There is no intrinsic problem from the genealogies of coming under the curse of Jeconiah's (i.e. Jehoiachin's) seed and hence not being eligible to the throne of David since Jesus would not be of Jeconiah's seed (i.e. not biologically related to Jeconiah through Joseph).

I am not sure how this relates to both genealogies applying to Joseph.

6. Luke's (i.e. Mary's) genealogy has Neri in place of Jeconiah. This, however, does not contradict the laws of the time. To summarize, Shealtiel has both Neri and Jeconiah as his father. Zerubbabel has Shealtiel as his father in both genealogies. Rhesa and Abiud both have Zerubbabel as their father, since this Zerubbabbel does not appear to be the same Zerubbabel whose grandfather was cursed King Jeconiah. Without arbitrarily assuming that this is contradictory we could explore a number of possibilities within the legal and cultural climate of the time.

Zerubabbel was famous in Hebrew scriptures because he was the founder of the second temple. Both gospel authors wished Joseph to be related to Zerubabbel ( an unusual name for a Hebrew, by the way). From the Hebrew texts, they knew that Shealtiel was his father but the texts did not list the grandfather. Hence, the authors made up different names. I call this the Zerubabbel bobble.

I'm not sure how arbitrary these assumptions and facts are since they are based on research into the culture. In fact I believe it to be as much an assumption if not more to glance at the genealogies and just assume that they contradict one-another. I've shown how they can not contradict one-another, and I've even supported my claims with Scriptural evidence within a cultural context. It may be a Theory, since there are some things left to our imagination, but I believe it to be a sound one. Any contradiction, however, would be pure speculation that a lack of information or insight automatically condemns the Scriptures. In America we do not say, "Guilty until proven innocent," and thus do not conclude that a lack of information in a particular case is automatically incriminating.

Your assumptions don't reconcile the obvious contradictions, as demonstrated above.

 

[Packrat]

Luke 1:27 says that Joseph was of the house of David, something both gospels agree upon.. How does this make one of the genealogies apply to Mary? She is never mentioned.

I was just covering all of the angles. In essence I was showing that one genealogy belonged to Joseph to begin with and then I dove into the proof that one belonged to Mary.

Seems easier to just assume she was from Judah."

Yes, it would be easier, but it wouldn't be as logical. I was simply explaining why it would make for a good choice and I gave my reasons. Therefore it would not be an arbitrary assumption but one based on reason.

No, the author of Luke has The Holy Spirit as Jesus' real father. Hence, the supposed son text.

Heh. I didn't mean to say that Eli was supposedly Jesus' biological father. I meant only to say that Jesus was "of Eli" because Eli was his closest male ancestor. Who do you think Mary came from?

A standard trick of the Apologist is to look for unusual definitions to words whose common definition fits more logically. The clear reading is that Elizabeth and Mary are cousins.

Well, according to the translation I like to read from the clearest reading would be that Elizabeth and Mary are relatives. In fact it says, "Even Elizabeth your relative [...]" I've heard the actual Greek word can best be translated "kinswoman" instead of cousin, relative or member of the same race. In essence the word would implicate Mary and Elizabeth as having closer blood than merely being of the Twelve Tribes, but what that closer relation would be is not explained. What is confusing about declaring Elizabeth to be Mary's cousin is that Mary is referred to as a young woman while Elizabeth is said to be barren and advanced in years (hence the miraculous birth of John the Baptist). Are you still saying they are cousins in spite of the age gap? See Luke 1:7.

I am not sure how this relates to both genealogies applying to Joseph.

I was just saying that the Jeconiah in the Matthew genealogy does not appear to be the same cursed King Jeconiah, so Jesus' right to the throne of David could not be doctrinally challenged on this point.

Zerubabbel was famous in Hebrew scriptures because he was the founder of the second temple. Both gospel authors wished Joseph to be related to Zerubabbel ( an unusual name for a Hebrew, by the way). From the Hebrew texts, they knew that Shealtiel was his father but the texts did not list the grandfather. Hence, the authors made up different names. I call this the Zerubabbel bobble.

That's an interesting perspective. Could you supply evidence for me to examine? Zerubbabel may've been an unusual name for Hebrews under any other circumstances. However, I've actually heard that Zerubbabel was a common name for the Hebrews around the time of the exile and return back into their land because they were living in Babylon. Purportedly the name means "Seed of Babylon" and implies the bearer of the name was born in Babylon or of Babylon's seed.

Your assumptions don't reconcile the obvious contradictions, as demonstrated above.

Well, I'd like to remind you of what "Innocent until proven guilty" means. And even if you do have evidence to prove these genealogies are guilty of contradictions or fabrications I honestly haven't seen any evidence on your behalf. The only thing I've seen is pure speculation based on your perspective of others' motives. Don't get me wrong; I'm just saying I don't see it yet.