Accuracy of the Bible

[Dirty Penguin]

No one has time to collect them all.

I know....Oh the power of the Internet Browser and online bibles...

While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.

I'm guessing (Moses/Aaron) were the only ones that heard "God's" voice and told them they must kill him....

When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.

Cave man mentality.....

Then they took what Micah had made, and his priest, and went on to Laish, against a peaceful and unsuspecting people. They attacked them with the sword and burned down their city.

This is just horrible.....

So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword those living there, including the women and children. 11 "This is what you are to do," they said. "Kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin." 12 They found among the people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at Shiloh in Canaan.

Nothing like good old fashioned kidnapping and sexual slavery.....

 

[sandy whitelinger]

When the law is created to support hate.

And this is relevent to what in this discussion?

 

[TheKnight]

Of course there may be times when you have to kill someone.

Here's the thing though. My point in arguing this whole thing with you is that it is OK to kill people sometimes. You agree. The difference is that you and I have different standards as to when it is justifiable to do so. You can't necessarily show that my standard for doing so is wrong. Because any criteria you can use to justify it in your outlook can also be applied to my outlook.

For instance, you yourself said that "when necessary to prevent greater harm" it is OK to kill someone. Well, God is all-knowing in Judaism and if God is all-knowing then surely He knows whether or not doing a particular action will prevent greater harm. OF all the cases in the Bible where God commands the Israelites to do kill someone, this is the case.

Where does it say these are the conditions for God speaking?

The Talmud has an example of it (I'm not sure where so forgive me). But the best way to show this is Deuteronomy 4. Deuteronomy 4 is the chapter in which God tells the children of Israel how to deal with other religions in the future.

Essentially, if a religion or revelation or teaching comes along that is not what God taught at Matan Torah, then "Ask now of the days past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth, and from the one end of heaven unto the other, whether there hath been any such thing as this great thing is, or hath been heard like it? Did ever a people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live? Or hath God assayed to go and take Him a nation from the midst of another nation, by trials, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, and by an outstretched arm, and by great terrors, according to all that the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before thine eyes? Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that the LORD, He is God; there is none else beside Him. Out of heaven He made thee to hear His voice, that He might instruct thee; and upon earth He made thee to see His great fire; and thou didst hear His words out of the midst of the fire. And because He loved thy fathers, and chose their seed after them, and brought thee out with His presence, with His great power, out of Egypt, to drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier than thou, to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheritance, as it is this day; know this day, and lay it to thy heart, that the LORD, He is God in heaven above and upon the earth beneath; there is none else. And thou shalt keep His statutes, and His commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, for ever."

And how did you come to the conclusion that particular holy book is true?

It was a long process. This has a large part of it.

Right. All of the expert translators of the Bible are wrong.

Not all translations render it as you put it.

Even if God commands it?

If God were to command it then it would be justified. However, He does not.

You're contradicting yourself. Here you're telling us it's moral to murder Midianite babies, and that it's prohibited. Which is it, commanded or prohibited?

I never said it was moral.

It is prohibited with exceptions.

Right. So murder, rape, genocide, infanticide, any atrocitiry is permissible when you come to the conclusion that God commands it. Not, as you said above, prohibited. Commanded. The opposite of prohibited.

Coming to the conclusion that God commanded it and God commanding it are two separate things. It is permissible to kill someone if God commands.

Nope. None of these people did anything. Everything they're being slaughtered for happened generations ago. Try again.

What are you talking about? Verse 31 follows from Parshas Pinchas which is only 2 chapters before. Granted, I wouldn't expect you to read in context.

it's so horrible is that you're relying on fallible people

Do you know any infallible people to rely on? Because if you do I'd love to meet these people. We rely on "infallible" people everyday.

Are you smarter than them? Better? How do you know you're right and they're wrong?

No. No. And I never said I was.

They use the same logic and methods that you do, and come to the same results. Their God commands them to kill people--just like yours.

God for them? God has not commanded me, personally, to kill anyone.

They follow His commands--just like you. They may be mistaken--and so may you?

Indeed.

It's not enough to say,"I believe..." So do they believe. On what basis do we decide which beliefs are correct? (Try not to resort to a circular argument.)

It doesn't matter to me. It's not a matter of whose right or wrong. It's a matter of I believe what I believe and they believe what they believe. If those two belief systems contradict then so be it. There is no reason to focus on "correctness" because it's not relevant who's "right".

 

[TheKnight]

Yes, there are times when killing someone is justufied. No, you can't make up arbitrary reasons for killing someone, I'm sorry. Unless you have an objective reason for killing someone, such as self-defence (or the defence of others), you are not permitted to kill anyone. You can't kill because daddy tells you to.

My point is that whatever logic you use to justify killing someone could also be used in my justification. To deny my justification, which uses the same logic as your own, would be to deny your own.

I agree, it does not matter, unless there is an objective reason, unless you are protecting yourself or others from getting harmed, no command regardless of motivation is sufficient justification to kill.

I didn't say that. I said that His reasons don't affect whether or not we should obey.

Really? His reasons have nothing to do with whether or not you obey him?! Really?!!

Yes. I obey God for certain reasons. Those reasons do not include "because I agree with His motivations for doing things." Therefore, if He asks me to do something, His motivation for asking me isn't relevant because it isn't a factor in whether or not I obey Him.

So, if you had knowledge of god's motivations and it turned out that god wanted you to kill someone because that made him laugh, you would obey?
Did you really mean to say that?

Would I personally obey? Or do I think I should obey?

Why would it not matter if you disagreed?! You claim you have the right to decide - that god does not make you do it, yet you also admit you would blindly follow god's command, regardless of his motivation. That's just horrible!

I disagree. But I disagree with a lot of things. I disagree with speeding laws, I disagree with weapon laws, I disagree with all sorts of various things that I obey. Why? Because my disagreement is simply my not liking the fact that something external to me is guiding/controlling my action. Disagreement is an expression of ego. Sure, I disagree with killing people. But I disagree with all sorts of other things that I obey (things I'm sure that you do too).

If I disagree with a law (like speeding) then is it OK for me to speed? I have a decision. I can either obey, or I can follow my internal desires (which isn't always bad) and disobey. I'm simply saying that I should obey in this case. Would I obey God if He told me (personally) to kill someone and I was sure that He was commanding me? No. I would not. Because I have Biblical examples of patriarchs disagreeing with God and winning said arguments (Moses with God over Israel after golden calf, Abraham with God over Sodom and Gemorrah). I would primarily disagree because I know that God would not penalize me for the defense of human life.

Instead of simply making it right in the first place? He would have you kill entire nations after having had created them, knowing full well that they were going to have to be destroyed? See, that doesn't really go with a loving god, does it? It's a bit like someone having a child knowing that he/she would murder it in, let say, ten years.

Parents have children knowing that they will experience pain, knowing that someday their chlidren will die. How is that any different?

People have the potention to disobey, clearly you do not! You admitted a moment ago that you would not disobey god, no matter what! Before even having a decision to make!

I did not say that I would not disobey. I said that one should obey. As of yet, no one has asked me if I, personally, would obey. I would not. But a person should obey what God commands.

That's not what I asked. Try again.

I answered your question.

Another piece of crappy reasoning, I see. Tell me, Knight, what is the justification for terrorism. What, save the word of god, is the justification for killing random women and children? Please, make me understand. :foot::foot::foot:

There is no justification for terrorism. There are justifications for war, however.

You're ignoring what I really said.

You said I believe because of hearsay.

Nothing to do with your particular religion, it's the logic behind your decision-making that I was criticizing. Please, explain to me how your reasoning differs in any relevant way from someone that commits an atrocity in the name of god.

They don't have the same level of evidence.

not on the basis of an objective standard.

What? Who said it has nothing to do with an objective standard?

Please tell me I've made an error in logic somewhere.

You've got a whole lot of ignorance stained assumptions.

The problem with the "this religion makes the strongest claim to truth" argument is that while that's a perfectly fine opinion, assesment, that does not mean that you can say that therefore, everything this religion says is the absolute truth. (Or at least it wouldn't mean that, if religions didn't include that in their scriptures). I'll never understand why, instead of judging each claim on its own merit, one would dogmatically defend each and every aspect of a religion, simply because one judges that religion to be the one that makes the strongest claim. Clealy, Knight, rape and murder are not ok, and we agree on that, I think. Yet, you'll defend and rationalize the most outrages, gruesome claims, as long as they are a part of the dogma of your religion. The all-or-nothing mentality is clearly not constructive. Imagine that I were to act in the same way and decide that, since one of the claims your religion makes is false (for instance, something as trivial as me not agreeing that diet is a moral issue), they must all be false. How illogical would it be of me to say that. And how dangerous, if I could live up to it.

More assumptions...

So you do understand, at least in a very small way, how doing something that goes against what you think is right simply because god commands it, is not necessarily the best course of action? Yet you still feel the need to rationalize the heck out of it?

We're not arguing about whether or not I would do it. In a theoretical sense, a person should do what God says because God said to do it. In a practical sense (especially when two values seem to contradict) one should question that God told them. If they conclude that God did tell them to do it. Then they should object. Not necessarily refuse to do it, but delay by way of arguing the point with God. If a significant argument could be made, based on Torah and logic, I'm sure God would relent. Especially in our current situation.


If, after objecting to God, God still desired that I did as He commanded. Then I would. However, I would ask a reason of God.

you would denounce your faith? .

If that scripture also had a nation of people that have consistently proclaimed its truth under intense pressure and persecution (such as that of the Jews) extending from the time it was given until now, yes.

 

[rojse]

And this is relevent to what in this discussion?

The statement is relevant to this exchange:

Since when is the satisfying of law deemed hateful?

When the law is created to support hate.

 

[rusra02]

He prays for their consecration by the power of the word in their hearts. - The People's New Testament (1891) by B. W. Johnson



But Paul never said it is accurate, and he was talking about the old testament(the LXX/Septuagint ) which included the deutro-canonicals




Doesn't sound very harmonious to me.


Yet no evidence


Yet no evidence


please provide facts

Hi. I was working on a response to all your questions and lost my post somehow. Let me just respond to your issue with the geneologies of Christ.
The difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father.

 

[te_lanus]

Hi. I was working on a response to all your questions and lost my post somehow. Let me just respond to your issue with the genealogies of Christ.
The difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father.

Yes, but there is huge mistakes in them:

Mathew makes the following errors in his list:

• dropped a couple of people's names: Joash, Amaziah, Azariah, Jehoiakim
• "Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ" thus 42 generations. Yet if you count there is only 41 ancestors in the list.
• Furthermore, in Jeremiah 22:28-30, God swears that Jeconiah will never have anyone that will sit on the throne of David. Yet he is in Joseph's genealogy

  Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.(Jer 22:30 KJV)

Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary

Sorry that is wrong. read carefully and you'll see that it goes thru Joseph.

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the (as was supposed) son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 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, (KJV)

Nowhere does it state it goes thru Mary. It is a theory created by man to prove that the bible contain no errors. It makes a mockery of the bible by implying that what Luke wrote is not reality. And Joseph had no influence on Jesus, as Jesus was born of Mary.

Also Luke makes the following errors in his list:

• He adds the following person into the genealogy of Abraham: Cainan
• After Nathan he follows a list that is nowhere else to find up to Shealtiel
• Shealtiel is said to be the son of a) Mathew: Jeconiah b) Luke: Neri
  
• Both Luke and Mathew drops Pedaiah from Jesus' genealogy.

Why are both genealogies considered to be Jesus' when it is clear that they are Joseph's, who was not his father?

Thus either Jesus was born of Both Mary and Joseph, For Joseph's genealogy to be used, or He was born of a Virgin Mary, and had no given genealogy.

 

[Commoner]

My point is that whatever logic you use to justify killing someone could also be used in my justification. To deny my justification, which uses the same logic as your own, would be to deny your own.

No, with all due respect, I am not even close to using the same logic to conclude what counts as justification for my actions. I require objective reasons where you require none. Even if I believed in a god, never in a million years could you convince me killing someone purely on the whim of that god was the moral action, no matter how great the miracle he offered in exchange. Might makes right is not one of my principles. I absolutely deny you or anyone else your "right" to kill or harm me or anyone else purely on the command of any person or any deity, and would actively try and prevent you or anyone else from exercising such behavior.

I didn't say that. I said that His reasons don't affect whether or not we should obey.

Yeah, I know, and you can say that with a straight face?

Yes. I obey God for certain reasons. Those reasons do not include "because I agree with His motivations for doing things." Therefore, if He asks me to do something, His motivation for asking me isn't relevant because it isn't a factor in whether or not I obey Him.

To say that you do not obey because of the explicit reason that you agree with his motivations is one thing, but to say that you would not disobey on the grounds of disagreeing with his motivations is another. God or Devil, you would follow both with equal zeal?

Would I personally obey? Or do I think I should obey?

What's the difference unless you're a hypocrite or lack a conscience. Sure, we never know how we would react in a certain situation, I would not ask you to answer that. However, what we think (hope) we would do and what we think we should do should be the same, should they not? If that's not the case with you, please answer both.

I disagree. But I disagree with a lot of things. I disagree with speeding laws, I disagree with weapon laws, I disagree with all sorts of various things that I obey. Why? Because my disagreement is simply my not liking the fact that something external to me is guiding/controlling my action. Disagreement is an expression of ego. Sure, I disagree with killing people. But I disagree with all sorts of other things that I obey (things I'm sure that you do too).

Would disobeying a law be the ethical, moral thing to do if you had strong objective reasons for thinking obeying it would be immoral and harmful in that situation or in general? Yes, absolutely. I can give you various examples of such situations, , but I think it's pretty obvious, isn't it? You don't seem to understand it's not about liking or disliking something that makes it prohibited in a society (or at least, it shouldn't). Do you not understand what objective reasons mean?

If I disagree with a law (like speeding) then is it OK for me to speed? I have a decision. I can either obey, or I can follow my internal desires (which isn't always bad) and disobey. I'm simply saying that I should obey in this case.

If not speeding would cause some horrible thing to happen (for instance, kill a person) and you had the chance to avoid that from happening by disobeying that law - yes, you should speed. You should disobey the law, absolutely. It's not a matter of liking or disliking it. I'll repeat the question: do you not understand what objective reasons mean?

Would I obey God if He told me (personally) to kill someone and I was sure that He was commanding me? No. I would not. Because I have Biblical examples of patriarchs disagreeing with God and winning said arguments (Moses with God over Israel after golden calf, Abraham with God over Sodom and Gemorrah). I would primarily disagree because I know that God would not penalize me for the defense of human life.

Well, now I've heard it all, I think.

On the one hand, you claim it is moral to obey god, even if he asks you to kill someone, without further justification, on the other hand you claim you would not do as god commands. Are you simply a hypocrite, or is this a freudian slip exposing your true convictions? And if this paradox of reasoning is to somehow be explained, what would that imply for your god?

Either he has made a mistake in telling you what the moral thing is, or it is something akin to a test of faith. Let's explore both options. If god has made a mistake, well...that can't be, right? That completely shatters your worldview. If, however, this was some sort of test, that it is worse still - now you have no way of knowing when god is telling the truth and when he is testing you. No longer is your scripture a source of absolute truth, but rather a source of perplexion and confusion. Which parts, if any, convey the true guidelines and which are there to be discussed and abandoned? And as for god's commands - they are irrelevant - questions rather than answers. If you are being tested, the best you can do is follow your principles, on reason, no?

Did Moses win an argument or fail the test? I wonder, can you really swallow all that and refer back to "The Good Book"?

Parents have children knowing that they will experience pain, knowing that someday their chlidren will die. How is that any different?

Forget, for a moment, this "parents" nonsense, which I will address shortly. You've missed the point in the outset. My objection was not prompted mainly by the concearn for the suffering and damnation of the person or the people that god will have commanded to be killed. No, no. It's the claim that an all-loving god would create such a violent and destructive situation in the first place. That he would deem it necessary to provide whole nations, doomed and depraved, for us to destroy, to murder their children and rape their daughters. If there is a lesson to be learned by such an event, surely it is not a lesson of love and compassion. How can you deem such a god all-loving? Even if there was a certain lesson to be learned which could be the purpose of such an event - surely god, all-powerful and all-loving as you claim him to be, could have found a way not so clearly despicable.

My first objection with your parent analogy would be that life is not suffering and pain (for most) and death is not something to be feared but rather to be considered as an end to a good experience, nothing more. So the gamble, from most potential parent's (not all), is worth it. God, for all his power, does not have the same privilege. For him, no uncertainty exists and no surprises. To really apply god to your analogy, you would have to consider something monstrous and disturbing. Parents that not only knew for sure that their child would be doomed to eternal suffering and damnation, a faith which we would not wish on our worst enemies, but parents that, despite having all the power in the world to do anything they wanted, intentionally decided to genetically engineer their child to live such a life. Despite having, not only the option not to do that, but to genetically engineer a normal, happy child.

Do I even need to list my other objections?

I did not say that I would not disobey. I said that one should obey. As of yet, no one has asked me if I, personally, would obey. I would not. But a person should obey what God commands.

You should and you won't. I've already addressed this issue - you're either a hypocrite or you are not honest in your beliefs.

There is no justification for terrorism. There are justifications for war, however.

Am I to understand from that that you believe the 9/11 attack were not an act of terrorism?

You said I believe because of hearsay.

No, no, you said it, I was not making an assumption:

I suppose that's possible. But the reason I believe in the Torah in the first place is due to hearsay. To witness testimony...

They don't have the same level of evidence.

Pray tell, what is this evidence? Mind you, you cannot use the Torah as a source for this answer. I hope you'll understand why, but be sure I'll take the time to explain it if you were to miss the point.

What? Who said it has nothing to do with an objective standard?

Reading in a book that "this is what must happen in order for you to do whatever is asked of you" can hardly be considered an objective reason to abandon all your other principles. The standard depends on which book you choose - in that sense, it is arbitrary. And you certainly won't be able to find an objective reason why it's appropriate to feel justified doing whatever you are commanded to do when you see "a certain kind of a miracle".

 

[Commoner]

You've got a whole lot of ignorance stained assumptions.

More assumptions...

Lovely, let's examine my "assumptions":

1. The reason you believe in the Torah in the first place is due to hearsay. Well, those are your words, Knight.
2. The Torah tells you what counts as a revelation. (or am I mistaken?)
3. If god tells you to do something, you are justified in doing it (I can quote you here as well, if you need me to)

My conclusion - therefore, you are justified in following what you perceive as god's command on the basis of hearsay. (To elaborate, the command itself need not be hearsay, it is simply the "what counts as a command from god" that is determined as such - and can be anything depending on the source) As much as I don't mind, even enjoy being called ignorant sometimes, please also explain which part of this is incorrect.

If that scripture also had a nation of people that have consistently proclaimed its truth under intense pressure and persecution (such as that of the Jews) extending from the time it was given until now, yes.

So I'll take it your previous answer that "there is no record of any previous contradictory revelation" is a bit...ahem...incomplete? Misleading? False?

You are now adding conditions that you could add only after you have already accepted the Torah as truth, so I'll just ask it again then: How can you (assuming that you have not yourself withnessed a grandiose miracle and assuming that a miracle 3000 years ago was an actual event) be sure that the supposed miracle you base your faith on didn't contradict what god had said even before that? How can you be sure that the "first revelation" was, in fact, first?

I would say that your argument boils down to - this one has the biggest miracle and a group of people really believe in it strongly.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The statement is relevant to this exchange:

I thought this was a Biblical discussion. Is what you said relevant to that?

 

[McBell]

I thought this was a Biblical discussion. Is what you said relevant to that?

If you don't like tangents, stop making them.

 

[Dunemeister]

Yes, but there is huge mistakes in them:

Mathew makes the following errors in his list:

• dropped a couple of people's names: Joash, Amaziah, Azariah, Jehoiakim
• "Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ" thus 42 generations. Yet if you count there is only 41 ancestors in the list.
• Furthermore, in Jeremiah 22:28-30, God swears that Jeconiah will never have anyone that will sit on the throne of David. Yet he is in Joseph's genealogy

Sorry that is wrong. read carefully and you'll see that it goes thru Joseph.
Nowhere does it state it goes thru Mary. It is a theory created by man to prove that the bible contain no errors. It makes a mockery of the bible by implying that what Luke wrote is not reality. And Joseph had no influence on Jesus, as Jesus was born of Mary.

Also Luke makes the following errors in his list:

• He adds the following person into the genealogy of Abraham: Cainan
• After Nathan he follows a list that is nowhere else to find up to Shealtiel
• Shealtiel is said to be the son of a) Mathew: Jeconiah b) Luke: Neri
  
• Both Luke and Mathew drops Pedaiah from Jesus' genealogy.

Why are both genealogies considered to be Jesus' when it is clear that they are Joseph's, who was not his father?

Thus either Jesus was born of Both Mary and Joseph, For Joseph's genealogy to be used, or He was born of a Virgin Mary, and had no given genealogy.

As far as the genealogies are concerned, you're making just as egregious mistakes as the person you're criticizing. Omitting names, for example, is not a "mistake."

 

[te_lanus]

As far as the genealogies are concerned, you're making just as egregious mistakes as the person you're criticizing. Omitting names, for example, is not a "mistake."

It has a lot to do with history. We're talking about the accuracy of the bible. and "supposedly" the bible contains no errors. yet these are errors, they contradict themself and other passages in the bible.

My grand dad is not my dad, yet both Mathew and Luke does this, in one place Mathew skips 2 generations. If one look at 1Ch 1:1-3:24 one gets the genealogies of Adam to past Zerubbabel

And the sons of Pedaiah were, Zerubbabel, and Shimei: and the sons of Zerubbabel; Meshullam, and Hananiah, and Shelomith their sister:
(1Ch 3:19 KJV)

And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
(Mat 1:12-13 KJV)

Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
(Luk 3:27 KJV)

If the bible contain no error please explain why Zerubbabel, according to 1Ch3:19, is born of Pedaiah, yet in both NT text he is born of Salathiel, which was really his granddad.

And why in the OT his sons are: Meshullam, and Hananiah. Yet in the NT his sons are: Rhesa or/and Abiud.

Here is a rundown of the genealogies of the NT against 1 Ch 3.

 

[rusra02]

It has a lot to do with history. We're talking about the accuracy of the bible. and "supposedly" the bible contains no errors. yet these are errors, they contradict themself and other passages in the bible.

My grand dad is not my dad, yet both Mathew and Luke does this, in one place Mathew skips 2 generations. If one look at 1Ch 1:1-3:24 one gets the genealogies of Adam to past Zerubbabel





If the bible contain no error please explain why Zerubbabel, according to 1Ch3:19, is born of Pedaiah, yet in both NT text he is born of Salathiel, which was really his granddad.

And why in the OT his sons are: Meshullam, and Hananiah. Yet in the NT his sons are: Rhesa or/and Abiud.

Here is a rundown of the genealogies of the NT against 1 Ch 3.

Zerubbabel was a son of Pedaiah, who was a brother of Shealtiel. Yet, the Bible at times calls Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel. (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27) This could be because Pedaiah died and Shealtiel raised Zerubbabel. Or perhaps since Shealtiel died without having a child, Pedaiah performed brother-in-law marriage, and Zerubbabel was the firstborn of that union.—Deuteronomy 25:5-10. Often seeming contradictions can be explained by knowledge of the laws, geography, and history surrounding people and events recorded in the Bible. The Bible in this case simply omits
facts that explain how Zerubbabel could rightly be called the son of 2 men. By the way, neither the Hebrew nor the Aramaic language has words for “grandfather” or “grandson”; “son of” can mean “grandson of” or even “descendant of.” (Compare Matthew 1:1.)

Critics of the Bible have time and again been proved wrong in their labeling people and events in the Bible as untrue. One example is Belshazzar spoken of in Daniel. Critics of the Bible said Belshazzar was a figment of the writer's imagination. That is, until archeology uncovered positive proof of Belshazzar's existence and kingship. There are many other such examples.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well let's start with Adam and Eve. Some christians say they existed as real people and this is evident all the way up to Paul who believed they were real people but we have christians today, even here on RF, who say they weren't real people rather they were "Allegory".....So which one is it.....? If the bible is to be viewed as accurate then the genealogy kind of makes sense but if they are allegory then doesn't that diminish some of the bible's validity?...And if it does then how can these authors trace a Yeshua back to Adam? Are we left with with the sense that the biblical Yeshua, considering there really isn't much information about him, his childhood or contemporary writings, was too allegory?......And how do we determine what is allegory and real history...?...

 

[rusra02]

Well let's start with Adam and Eve. Some christians say they existed as real people and this is evident all the way up to Paul who believed they were real people but we have christians today, even here on RF, who say they weren't real people rather they were "Allegory".....So which one is it.....? If the bible is to be viewed as accurate then the genealogy kind of makes sense but if they are allegory then doesn't that diminish some of the bible's validity?...And if it does then how can these authors trace a Yeshua back to Adam? Are we left with with the sense that the biblical Yeshua, considering there really isn't much information about him, his childhood or contemporary writings, was too allegory?......And how do we determine what is allegory and real history...?...

What matters is what the founder of Christianity believed and taught. Jesus clearly taught that Adam and Eve were historical people, as did his followers in the first century. If Adam was not created by God and sinned against God, then the ransom sacrifice of Christ would have no value. Either we accept the truthfulness of God's word or we don't. This portraying the Bible record as allegory is, in truth, a patent denial of the Bible's truthfulness and inspiration by God.

 

[McBell]

What matters is what the founder of Christianity believed and taught. Jesus clearly taught that Adam and Eve were historical people, as did his followers in the first century. If Adam was not created by God and sinned against God, then the ransom sacrifice of Christ would have no value. Either we accept the truthfulness of God's word or we don't. This portraying the Bible record as allegory is, in truth, a patent denial of the Bible's truthfulness and inspiration by God.

Whoa!!!
I am going to have to ask you to present how Jesus "clearly taught that Adam and Eve were historical people".

 

[Dunemeister]

It has a lot to do with history. We're talking about the accuracy of the bible. and "supposedly" the bible contains no errors. yet these are errors, they contradict themself and other passages in the bible.

The genealogies are obviously highly stylized. Their rhetorical force is to legitimate Jesus' claim to messiahship. The names differ because Luke and Matthew were using different symbolism to embody the claim. This is not equivalent to "they contradict" or "they are false." Admittedly, however, they are problematic (singly, let alone in tandem).

 

[Dunemeister]

Whoa!!!
I am going to have to ask you to present how Jesus "clearly taught that Adam and Eve were historical people".

He didn't teach it. He may have assumed it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What matters is what the founder of Christianity believed and taught. Jesus clearly taught that Adam and Eve were historical people, as did his followers in the first century.

You must be referring to Matt. 19:4-5

If Adam was not created by God and sinned against God, then the ransom sacrifice of Christ would have no value.

Then you may have a problem because archeology and anthropology shows us that "man" has been here way longer than 12/13 thousand years. So maybe your comment above is fact....maybe the supposed sacrifice has no value...

Either we accept the truthfulness of God's word or we don't. This portraying the Bible record as allegory is, in truth, a patent denial of the Bible's truthfulness and inspiration by God.

Well that is a fight for you and your Christian brethren. Why is there disagreement amonsgt you? If you are having problems establishing the historicity of Adam then how can we be convinced that the biblical Yeshua was historical?