Bible Study Study of Messianic Prophecy.

[Bob666]

Well, believe what you will. You are dead set in thinking that they contradict.

Not so. You have not shown me why I should change my mind. You have presented no evidence to support the idea that its Mary's genealogy and not Joseph's (besides the fact that you claimed Joseph wasn't even mentioned in Luke, which was not so as I showed you).

So I suppose if I do my own genealogy worded in like manner, or someone even does it for me, I don't know who my own relatives are because someone reads them differently and adamantly states "that's what it says"?

You keep coming back to you doing your own genealogy, and as I stated before, the analogy doesn't work. If Jesus or Joseph had done their own genealogy and presented it in writing, or if someone who knew Jesus or Joseph had done their genealogy, then you might be able to use this analogy. However, as I have said, this is not the case. The genealogy is coming from someone who never even knew Jesus or Joseph, except by hearsay. There is no evidence to show that the writer was even trying to write history or get his facts straight and we have no idea where the writer is getting his information other than the OT.

But since you keep coming back to this, lets take a close look at it. You say that you can create two different genealogies of your family. Ok, but here's the catch: If your father is not named as your father in one of the two genealogies, then, yes, it is incorrect. And I'm not speaking of any stepfather that raised you or any adoptive father that might have adopted you and given you his name. This doesn't work. You do not carry his lineage despite the name change because you are not really his son. You carry the genetic makeup of you biological father. It is those genes that you pass on to your children no matter who your stepfather or adoptive father might be. If your genealogy lists anybody other than you biological father, then the genealogy is either a lie or incomplete. So, unless you can come up with a way to make yourself have two biological fathers, your analogy falls apart.

You have not supplied an ounce of evidence that the so-called straightforward reading you are proposing it how the text was meant to be taken, thus that's why I used the electronic example. A straightforward reading says that the sum must add up, but in the experiment, its appears not to do so. A supposed straightforward reading would have a skeptic come to the same conclusion that the electronic text is wrong as you have about the genealogies. That is my whole point.

I presented an alternate hypothesis about how the genealogy of Luke and Matthew could have been created, a hypothesis that you keep ignoring and have not shown why it could not have been that way.

I am also looking at what the writer wrote instead of trying to read into the text something that is not there. Its a genealogy, and genealogies need no interpretation because they are straightforward. There is no need to interpret 1 Chronicles 7, 1 Chronicles 8, or any of the other genealogies of the bible. Are we to read these other genealogies and try to say that they are not the genealogies of who they claim? Is the genealogy of Issachar not the genealogy of Issachar but of his wife, despite the fact that Issachar is clearly named in 1 Chronicles 7:1? If not, why is Matthew and Lukes genealogies to be taken any different? Just because they are supposed to be the lineage of Jesus does not give them special privileges to "interpretation." They are straightforward genealogies, not parables to ponder.

As for the experiment, as a skeptic, I disagree. Here is exactly what I would do:

1. I would look at the experiment and results judging to see if any errors were made on my part (Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena).

2. Afterwards, I would try to guess and see if I could find out why my experiment was different than the textbooks (Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena).

3. I would test my hypothesis to see if it was correct (Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations).

4. I would then redo the experiment to see if I could get the correct answer. If not, then I would go back to step 1.

I would also reference outside sources who have done this experiment before to see what results they came up with and why. Doing so might speed up the process of finding out why my experiment was wrong or what information I was missing.

I'm sure you recognize the above steps (you did say that you were interested in Science and Math). I would, however, not automatically assume that the textbook in question was wrong and I was right. I would gather information on the subject first. If all information pointed me to the fact that the textbook was incorrect, then I could safely say that it was.

If you are bent on disproving Christianity, more power to you. But pick a different text, because obviously there are people who interpret the genealogies differently and there are more interpretations to it than yours alone.

And there are those who disagree with you on non-contradiction. So what. We both could bring in names of scholars who would share our point of view, and in the end it would get us no closer to the truth. That, however, is not the point of these discussions. I present you my point of view to show that there are different ways to take the text other than "inerrancy." and "non-contradiction." It is possible that the text means just what it says with no interpretation needed. I understand that you might not like that idea, but it is a different way of looking at things.

Bob

 

[John the Baptist]

I'm not partial to any one. Pick a group if you like, its your thread. And take your time, there's no rush on these things. I can wait.

****
Hi, I liked the 'work' done! + the list. :fadein:

This remark is just for you alone, seeing that you belive in what you have studied, no doubt?

Add unto your study list the K.J. verses of Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 & Ecclesiastes 3:15 for todays present Day Truth. Then one can 'quickly' understand how the posted verses of your post are.. once again on target!

Right on down to the Hebrews 6:6 many [repeats] of.. ".. seeing they [crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh], and [put Him to an open shame.]"


All in all, thanks for the work of love, and the 'needed' refresher course of Truth!
--John