outhouse
Atheistically
Biblical genealogy is factually not reliable. It contradicts itself.
Please let the excuses flow.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .
- Thread starter Jared Jammer
- Start date
Biblical genealogy is factually not reliable. It contradicts itself.
Please let the excuses flow.
outhouse
Atheistically
WE KNOW
That is how you define fanaticism and fundamentalism. Thank you for the examples.
outhouse
Atheistically
There has never been such a thing as a true Christian.
Jesus and his followers were all Aramaic Jews.
The Hellenist who created the literature in the NT were far removed from Galilee and the original movement strictly in Judaism.
gnostic
The Lost One
Putting words in my mouth, but that's just you being you, dishonest bloody Christian, with the tendencies to draw conclusions that are not there. You do that with science, you do it toward your own religion, and now you doing that to my posts.
You disregards what I have stated about similarities with ancient and family names, doesn't make it noble, aristocratic or royal blood or lineage or ancestry. But you are going to twist what I've said so if I stated that I was.
-----
As to unreliability of genealogy, as sources of historicity.
Genealogies are unreliable, especially from religious sources, and modern Christian interpretations of these genealogies.
The fact that both gospels trace to mythological figures of Abraham to David, demonstrated the unreliability of both gospels. But Luke went one step further by listing more names from Genesis, which further mythologizing Jesus supposed ancestry.
Actual and verifiable historicity of ancient Israel only began with the divisions of the kingdom to Israel and Judah. Only then do we get confirmations of the existences of some of the kings from outside sources.
However, the genealogy Adam and to the last king of Judah are well-known, so it is impossible to separate history from myth and legend, especially when it come religion. So as questionable I find in the OT, it is all the sources we have.
No one can verify Luke's David's son Nathan to Joseph's father Heli.
No one can verify who's Joseph's father. Is it Jacob or Heli?
At least, with the gospel of Matthew, we can verify his gospel genealogy from Solomon to Shealtiel with the OT sources from 1 & 2 Kings and 1& 2 Chronicles.
And I know, I know. You believe that Heli is Mary's father, not Joseph's, but the truth is that this association of Mary to Heli are only recent development. You are ignoring fact that Luke (gospel, not the person) specifically state -
Joseph son of Heli.
No where is Mary's name appear in that verse. And no where in the entire NT, does it ever mention the identity of Mary's father (or mother). The only person we can identify that Mary was related to, is Elizabeth and John the Baptist in Luke 1. No where in the NT state what tribe Mary belonged to, but it is possible to link her to Aaron, brother of Moses, because of Elizabeth being her only known relative, but even the possible link between Mary and Aaron is only tenuous at best.
I've said earlier "recent development", because there are no early sources - be they NT writings or writings of early church traditions and church fathers - NEVER stated conclusively who is Mary's father.
But getting back to Luke's genealogy. There is no way that can confirm or verify the list of names, from Nathan to Heli, of their existences, because Luke is the only one who listed Nathan's descendants. Hence, Luke's version is deemed, unreliable, and seemed to be invented.
Similarly, we cannot confirm or verify any of the names after Shealtiel (to Jacob, Joseph's father), in the gospel of Matthew.
But that's not the only with Matthew's version to Jesus' genealogy. Though, Matthew's list of names in the royal house of Judah (before the fall of Jerusalem), there are 4 names missing - Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim.
The 2 Kings listed Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim, but Matthew don't, which means that Matthew's is also unreliable.
Can you tell me why Matthew omitted 4 names?
Last edited by a moderator:
David M
Well-Known Member
That statement does not mean that they cannot be relied upon where good written records exist. The Bible is not a good written record by the way.
The Genealogy of my family can be traced back about 500 years reliably for direct ancestors with the family surname because reliable records exist in the UK. For another 500 years the records are patchy and not wholly reliable (as I said originally). Beyond 1066 the genealogical history is very unreliable as there are no good records of births deaths and marriages.
Still confusing me with other posters I see. Going to admit that you were wrong about my claiming royal blood?
All you seem to have left now are insults, arrogance and misrepresentation.
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
In your opinion, it is wrong.....in my opinion, it is right. What is God's opinion?...we will have to wait and see, won't we?
Or maybe he just omitted the details so that unbelievers would feel superior in their evaluation of the situation? The Bible says that God has hidden things from "the wise and intellectual ones and revealed them to infants". Why would he do that? Because it is the wise and intellectual ones who have influence on the masses. He will not prevent people from believing whatever they wish......in fact he will judge them on it.
He has nothing to prove to you or anyone else who wants to discount his existence. He will allow you to be deluded right up to the end. (2 Thess 2:9-12) He does not need us...we need him.
Necessary for whom? Those who have a desire to be accepted by men?....those who have sold out to the weight of public opinion. That same public opinion led to the death of Jesus Christ...a point wasted on unbelievers, I know.
In your opinion my common sense is wrong. The things that are vital for life, you believe we're just a series of fortunate accidents...I don't believe they are accidental at all. Everything just works for the perpetuation of life without any intervention from the Creator. Perfect systems all working together are not an accident in any facet of human experience, but they just happen in nature.....? You don't find that just a little bit much to swallow?
How much co-incidence is too much?
How old is the theory of evolution? It is an infant by comparison to the Bible.
Scientific "facts" go out the window when we speak of organic evolution. There are no "facts"....all you really have is a "theory"......."a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion;"
This is what science is trying to pass off as fact. Pride will not let them admit it. Changing the definition of the word doesn't alter a thing.
As for the "literal dirt"...you and I both know that science has revealed the same elements in the makeup of humans as we find in that "dirt". So the Bible is spot on there.
You keep asserting that there are "proven facts" to back up the whole thing, but all you have is educated guesses posing as facts. Just because those who want the Creator to go away produce biased findings in their so called evidence, doesn't mean that their interpretation is correct. All I see is the emperor's new clothes. You all believe that there are facts to back up this theory....they make it all sound so convincing....but there are none. Nothing presented so far as proof, is any such thing.
What depth of scientific ignorance portrays an unproven theory as fact in the minds of children? This is brainwashing at its finest. I will never allow my children or grandchildren to be persuaded by the clever computer graphics presented to them. I will tell them the truth so that they can see there are two sides to this issue. It is immoral not to give them a choice.
There is NO evidence! It is all speculation based on the biased interpretation of what is studied. Conclusions are reached that support a pre-conceived notion. Bias is demonstrated at every turn. Assumption is not fact. Speculation is not truth.
What overwhelming evidence? Present some and I will happily show you the language that shoots it down every time.
All I can say is that you lot are easily 'overwhelmed' by the words of men with academic credentials. It's as if they are God and you must believe every word they write......how are you different from us believers?
Last edited:
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You're really going to repeat this yet again, after we've just gone over why it is wrong, yet again?
And you seriously wonder why people are calling you out on your dishonesty? I mean, really!
outhouse
Atheistically
The bible says a lot of mythological things took place. That does not make it so.
Its not our fault you refuse academia and facts you know little about.
outhouse
Atheistically
There is evidence and evolution is fact and not up for debate.
The whole world views evolution as fact because it is. It is taught as higher education everywhere.
Only fanaticism denies it. That's is a fact as well.
Shad
Veteran Member
Nope it compared movement since bending does not mean length, use a dictionary..... The rest of your comment is irrelevant since it is based on your inability to know what a word means.
I do not agree since I know what post hoc rationalization means, it is a fallacy. To accept it means I would be just as illogical as yourself.
Never said they weren't part of the tribe, strawman. Keep making up arguments in your head I never made....
Nonsensical drivel that says nothing at all let along deals with what I have posted, try again son.
Roman didn't care about tribal organizations, they cared about actual settlements and the residence the population had. It taxed a population on their property assets not on where their ancestors came from... If Rome could not assess who owned what when it owners were off hundreds of miles away it could not tax them during the very census. Worse they could just take the land since it would be abandoned. An alternative is one could just lie which results in Rome have a false record. Rome didn't care for what its saw as an inferior culture's policies, it had it's own system which was provincial based for its greater territory. If one lived in Rome that is their place of residence, if they happened to be a member of a tribe this was completely secondary as much as religious views or skin colour play in taxes... It is irrelevant to the purposes of taxes and population census. The tax burden is based on community not tribal affiliation. You are projecting Jewish customs on to Roman policies which is nonsensical.
Again you ignore actual Roman policies which are far better documented that your text is.
Pure speculation based on nothing, try again. Argument from ignorance.
Which can apply to residence not place of birth. However since later verses should how wrong the author was this comment is irrelevant.
I have history backing my position and centuries worth of Roman policy. You have a 4 books made decades after the fact by people ignorant government systems and removed from the actual area since none of the authors were from the province in question. It only covers a small period of time.
Besides this Rome didn't tax a client kingdoms citizens, it received tribute from the client kings. It didn't care how these kings taxed their nations, they just wanted what was owed to Rome by treaty. When the client kingdom became a problem it was absorbed or abandoned. If absorbed it used Roman not Jewish policies since sovereignty is in the hands of Rome through the governor not the citizens of the province and certainly not their religion.
Last edited:
Shad
Veteran Member
I just just pointing out the red herring tossed at you while turning it around on him. It was not so much of a criticism of your response but of JM2C's error.
Shad
Veteran Member
Explain what, which method, history, theology, philosophy, etc? You are leaving me the choice of method to use thus provided no parameter of your intent. Learn how to form proper sentences so you can communicate your idea better.... I already provided based on your incapability to focus your points.
A claim anyone can make. She could of lied, the story could be a lie. I am born of a virgin. Big deal.... A claim you can not prove is useless and dismissed as such.
Use that line when you have not ignored evidence against your view especially of Roman policy. You accept the Bible as true and ignore evidence which proves any part is in error due to your ideology.
See son post hoc rationalization is attempting to recover a view from being wrong(you). It is not about an argument proving a view is wrong(Me). You do not know what the fallacy means and used it in error. So far I have external evidence of Roman policies proving you view wrong. You have yet to produce a single external source supporting your view, it is all internalised thus is circular logic which is fallacious. Thus you argument is unsound and illogical to hold. There is a difference, try to figure this out if you can. Enroll in logic 101 if you need help.
Shad
Veteran Member
Not pride. Historical records support my views. Use that line when you are not a member of a cult relegated as irrelevant in Biblical scholarship and the field of history.
I only hold you responsible for your own failings for accepting evidence against your views, inability to know let along use logic, lack of understanding of fallacies and use of circular logic. Play the victim to someone that cares.
Shad
Veteran Member
I corrected you, you refused to accept you were mistaken. The only reason for this is due to your lack of education or that your ideology prevents you from doing so. You went off the deep end in order to defend your ideology while rejecting not just me but other posters pointing out you were wrong. Let also not pretend you started calling me genius, starting using caps and colours as if it means something. Nice try at playing the victim. /tiny violin
If you are that emotional unstable you should not interact with people in public or avoid people that do not share your views. DIR is the place to post as I only read but never comment on those threads.
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
Why not? The evolutionists keep repeating that their cherished belief is a fact....but it is not a fact by any definition of the word.
Yes really.....I see total dishonesty in calling theory based on grand assumptions, an established fact......the foundations of your belief are seriously flawed. You are looking at the impressive building and the academic credentials of those who built it...I see huge cracks in the foundations. We all know that the foundations of a building are the most important part. Weak foundations mean the whole building will collapse sooner rather than later.
You are free to believe whatever you like, but don't try to tell people that evolution is fact...it just plain isn't. They want it to be, but they have no conclusive proof.....assuming that something happened, doesn't mean it did.
All I see are protests, but no proof. Show us your evidence and I will show you the cracks in the foundations.
Every piece I have read as proof of evolution has the subtle language of assumption and speculation.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
You have been shown the evidence, this thread is just you trolling.
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
Trolling is when people post uninvited and just spout rude negativity.....I have responded to posts addressed to me...that is not trolling...what you have done is trolling. If you don't like what I say that's fine but the insults are not really necessary are they?
There are others here who troll....how about you pick them up?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Actually, it is. Evolution has been directly observed multiple times.
Unfortunately, you don't have sufficient understanding of building regulations or architecture to tell the difference between a crack and an arch. Metaphors are fun.
Evolution is the most heavily evidenced theory in modern science. If you're worried about any theories, you should be more worried about the theory of gravity. It has much less evidence supporting it.
You are free to believe whatever you like, but don't tell people that the sky is blue... it just plain isn't. They want it to be, but they have no conclusive proof....assuming that something is blue, doesn't mean it is.
"Proof" doesn't exist in science. You provide more indication of your scientific illiteracy.
If you want evidence, the fossil record, genetics and, more specifically, ERVs and human-ape chromosome 2 provide sufficient evidence of common ancestry. What is your proposed explanation for why we see a very clear progression through the geological strata of fossils that fit perfectly with evolutionary predictions? Do you honestly believe that these ancient species all simply died out and then were magically replaced out of thin air hundreds of thousands of years later by another, somewhat similar species? Why is it unreasonable to assume that an observed process is responsible for this rather than magic?
It's called "being honest". Science never asserts certainty, which is what makes it MORE reliable, not LESS. If I provided evidence that used language such as "definitely did" and "proof of", that wouldn't make it any more worth believing, would it? Only a gullible fool would find something more believable just because it uses more definite language rather than honest language that leaves open the possibility of correction and clarification.
This indicates not only a lack of understanding of science, but a lack of understanding of honest discourse. Your problems clearly go far further than merely and lack of scientific education, and indicate a much deeper level of dishonesty on your part.
JM2C
CHRISTIAN
They went to Bethlehem from the city of Nazareth to register [Read Luke 2:3-5] and “While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.” –Luke 2:6-7.
“And when eight days had passed, before His circumcision, His name was then called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.” –Luke 2:21
It says after “eight days” from birth, right? They were still in Bethlehem at this time.
“And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord” –Luke 2:22
On the eighth day a male child was circumcised [read Ge 17:12], after which the mother was unclean an additional thirty-three days [read Lev 12:1-5].
IOW, from the birth of the Lord Jesus to the time of Mary’s purification had finished, they stayed in Bethlehem for over 41 days and then, “When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him.” –Luke 2:39-40.
From here is Matthew’s chronological account of their flight to Egypt.
A short time later, Joseph and Mary and the CHILD/PAIDION Jesus [not an BABY/BREPHOS anymore LUKE'S] in Matthew it says, “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.” When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him” –Matt 2:1-3.
“After coming into the HOUSE they saw the CHILD/PAIDION [and not a BABY/BREPHOS anymore in LUKE’S] with Mary His mother; and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him. Then, opening their treasures, they presented to Him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.” –Matt 2:11.
NOTICE that they were in the “HOUSE” and SAW THE CHILD/PAIDION” as not in the “MANGER” where the shepherds saw the “BABY/BREPHOS as He lay in the MANGER”. Can you tell the difference now? “HOUSE/MATTHEW” and “MANGER/LUKE”
“So they came in a hurry and found their way to Mary and Joseph, and the BABY/BREPHOS as He lay in the manger.” Luke 2:16.
ARE YOU HAVING A HARD TIME FOLLOWING THE SEQUENCE OF THE EVENT?
BORN/BABY/JESUS/MANGER/SHEPHERDS/HEROD NOT SEARCHING YET/NO FLIGHT TO EGYPT YET/LUKE’S ACCOUNT. The keyword here is “BABY/BREPHOS”
CHILD/JESUS/HOUSE/MAGI/HEROD SEARCHING/YES FLIGHT TO EGYPT/MATTHEW’S ACCOUNT. The keyword here is “CHILD/PAIDION”
After the Magi left the CHILD/PAIDION Jesus [and not a BABY/BREPHOS in LUKE’S],
“Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up! Take the CHILD/PAIDION [and not a BABY/BREPHOS in LUKE’S] and His mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the CHILD/PAIDION to destroy Him.” So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt. He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON.” –Matt 2:13-15
“But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, and said, “Get up, take the Child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel; for those who sought the Child’s life are dead.” “So Joseph got up, took the Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel.” –Matthew 2:19-21
“Came to the land of Israel –Matt 2:21” MEANING: they were in the land of Israel already from Egypt or just across the border. As soon as they crossed the border from Egypt is the district of Idumea, [Part of Israel already, or part of Achelaus’ 3 districts and the other two were Judea and Samaria] and after Idumea is Judea where “Archelaus was reigning –Matt 2:22”.
“But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Then after being warned by God in a dream, he left for the regions of Galilee,” Matthew 2:22.
It says: Joseph “was afraid to go there”. Where? In Judea. Why? Because of Archelaus, known for his ruthlessness, and from where Joseph supposedly “heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea”, perhaps in Idumea, so they went straight to where they used to live, and that is, in the region of Galilee in the city of Nazareth, a district ruled by Archelaus’ brother Herod Antipas.
MT 2:23 and came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: “He shall be called a Nazarene.”
IT BLEW ON YOUR FACE, DIDN’T IT?
McBell
Unbound
Trolling is when people post uninvited and just spout rude negativity.....I have responded to posts addressed to me...that is not trolling...what you have done is trolling. If you don't like what I say that's fine but the insults are not really necessary are they?
There are others here who troll....how about you pick them up?
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1]extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3]
Source