Is the Bible too Contradictory for All of it to be True?

[omega2xx]

Wouldn't matter. I can find dozens of witnesses for miracles you and I would both dismiss. From a historical perspective, one can not confirm or deny a miracle, because by definition, they are the least likely thing to occur.

You don't know if I would dismiss them. Why do you insist on calling honest men liars?

I never suggested G-d wouldn't. However, to accept a miracle as fact, it requires faith. I'm not arguing against faith. I'm simply saying from a historical perspective, one can not confirm or deny a miracle. History is part of my background, and thus when I look at such claims, I apply the historical method to them.

Here is another yes or no question---Can God perform miracles?

I have no want to discredit the Bible. Just because I say there is a contradiction, doesn't mean that I just throw out the entire passage. Personally, I believe that Luke and Matthew were attempting to make theological arguments based on their genealogies.

It is not just saying there are contradictions, It is questioning much of what the Bible says. There is no theological arguments in he genealogies.

But please explain why the two genealogies, which nearly never agree with each other, don't contradict each other. Levarite marriage didn't work, as you used that for just one discrepancy. What about the many others. Such as, which son of King David does Jesus descend from? Nathan or Solomon.

As long as Nathan and Solomon were sons of David, it does not matter, the crucial matters is that the Messiah had to come through the line of David and both genealogies say He did. It was necessary to include Nathan to establish Jesus' natural descent from David and through Solomon the establish His legal claim to the throne.


Instead of telling you the same thing, answer this; Would a leverite marriage not explain the differences? If not why not?

 

[fallingblood]

You don't know if I would dismiss them. Why do you insist on calling honest men liars?

I didn't call you a liar. Are you telling me that you accept that Muhammad ascended into heaven? That Joseph Smith really found gold tablets that he translated? That Tibetan monks can levitate and walk through walls? Or that priests of ancient gods, through the power of their gods, were able to do miracles? Or would you dismiss some or all of those claims?

Here is another yes or no question---Can God perform miracles?

That's a question based on faith. Do I think the G-d that I have faith in has the power to perform miracles? Yes. Not based on evidence, based on faith alone.

It is not just saying there are contradictions, It is questioning much of what the Bible says. There is no theological arguments in he genealogies.

I think there are theological arguments in the genealogies. If you want, I can start a new thread point those theological points out.

As long as Nathan and Solomon were sons of David, it does not matter, the crucial matters is that the Messiah had to come through the line of David and both genealogies say He did. It was necessary to include Nathan to establish Jesus' natural descent from David and through Solomon the establish His legal claim to the throne.

But neither genealogy contains both. So lets start slow. You seem to agree that the genealogies differ on what son of David Jesus is descended from. How is that not a contradiction? And if we accept what you're saying, how is that not a theological argument in the genealogy? And wouldn't Solomon also establish natural descent from David? So there is no need for Nathan.

Instead of telling you the same thing, answer this; Would a leverite marriage not explain the differences? If not why not?

It wouldn't explain the differences at all. The reason being that in a levarite marriage, the child is still born to the same family. If I would die, and my brother had to marry my wife, that wouldn't change the genealogy at all. The child's grandfather would still be my dad. Not to mention, as per a levarite marriage, I would still be seen in the child's lineage. It would still be through me that the genealogy would be made. It changes absolutely nothing.

At best, if someone was unaware of the levarite marriage, it may change one single entry in the genealogy (and really, that genealogy would then be incorrect anyway), but no more than one entry. The problem with the genealogies in Matthew and Luke is that we aren't talking about one single difference, which may be able to be explained by a levarite marriage (and there are problems there), but dozens of differences. There is almost no agreement between the two genealogies, and that can't be explained by a levarite marriage.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Hi! It would not surprise me one bit if you are communicating in code to someone. LOL

I even imagine that one day you will flip your picture upright as a signal for something or other.

I believe I speak plain English lol

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

The Jesus I know speaks as food for thought. I believe it all makes sense at the highest and the lowest standing in the mind. Much of it is in consideration of the unconscious mind. That is how I know he is the promised messiah. It is written faith is needed for my life. Faith leads to trust. Trust leads to knowing. Knowing leads to friendship with God. Matthew 13:12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance.

I do like this post but I think I will add its not trust if manipulated or knowing. Completely anyways.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Hi! It would not surprise me one bit if you are communicating in code to someone. LOL

I even imagine that one day you will flip your picture upright as a signal for something or other.

someone sent the pic up right last week.
I said THANKS!

 

[omega2xx]

I didn't call you a liar.

I was referring to the apostles, no to me.

Are you telling me that you accept that Muhammad ascended into heaven? That Joseph Smith really found gold tablets that he translated? That Tibetan monks can levitate and walk through walls? Or that priests of ancient gods, through the power of their gods, were able to do miracles? Or would you dismiss some or all of those claims?

I dismiss all of them.

That's a question based on faith. Do I think the G-d that I have faith in has the power to perform miracles? Yes. Not based on evidence, based on faith alone.

If God can, why do you not believe He did? Which miracles do you believe Jesus performed?

I think there are theological arguments in the genealogies. If you want, I can start a new thread point those theological points out.

Do it any way you want to.

But neither genealogy contains both. So lets start slow. You seem to agree that the genealogies differ on what son of David Jesus is descended from. How is that not a contradiction?

Because Nathan and Solomon were both descended from David. That keeps the line of Jesus to David intact. That is really the main purpose of establishing Jesus as the Messiah, the rightful heir to the throne.

And if we accept what you're saying, how is that not a theological argument in the genealogy? And wouldn't Solomon also establish natural descent from David? So there is no need for Nathan.

If there was no need Nathan, God would not have included it. I told you yesterday that Jesus was descended from David naturally through Nathan and legally through Solomon. Both are necessary to establish His right to the trhone of David.

It wouldn't explain the differences at all. The reason being that in a levarite marriage, the child is still born to the same family. If I would die, and my brother had to marry my wife, that wouldn't change the genealogy at all. The child's grandfather would still be my dad. Not to mention, as per a levarite marriage, I would still be seen in the child's lineage. It would still be through me that the genealogy would be made. It changes absolutely nothing.

This is my last comment o a leverite marriage. In a leveite marriage the first son born was not given the name of the biological father. It was given then name of the dead brother. If you don't understand that difference, you will never understand how that does not make a contradiction in the genealogy.

At best, if someone was unaware of the levarite marriage, it may change one single entry in the genealogy (and really, that genealogy would then be incorrect anyway), but no more than one entry. The problem with the genealogies in Matthew and Luke is that we aren't talking about one single difference, which may be able to be explained by a levarite marriage (and there are problems there), but dozens of differences. There is almost no agreement between the two genealogies, and that can't be explained by a levarite marriage.[/QUOTE]

 

[fallingblood]

If God can, why do you not believe He did? Which miracles do you believe Jesus performed?

I don't think it matters. Whether Jesus did miracles or not really matters little to me, and thus I don't really care. I never said that G-d doesn't do miracles, I said historically, one can not verify such. And being a historian, I can't verify any miracle by Jesus, and thus my beliefs on the matter are inconsequential.

Because Nathan and Solomon were both descended from David. That keeps the line of Jesus to David intact. That is really the main purpose of establishing Jesus as the Messiah, the rightful heir to the throne.

That's not how a genealogy works. Either Jesus descended from Nathan, or from Solomon. He had to descend from one. He can't descend from both.

If there was no need Nathan, God would not have included it. I told you yesterday that Jesus was descended from David naturally through Nathan and legally through Solomon. Both are necessary to establish His right to the trhone of David.

No, no they aren't. Being descended from either would have been enough. He would, nevertheless, be a descendant of King David. Now, your argument here is based on faith, not by actual evidence. Neither Matthew or Luke said that they were trying to establish anything, and that the other could establish something else. No, both stated that they were making a genealogy of Jesus. As in, Jesus was the son of Joseph, who was the son of ... the son of .... etc. Not once does it state that he was the son of ... but instead we will go through someone else to make a different argument.

What you're doing here is adding to the Gospels.

This is my last comment o a leverite marriage. In a leveite marriage the first son born was not given the name of the biological father. It was given then name of the dead brother. If you don't understand that difference, you will never understand how that does not make a contradiction in the genealogy.

I fully understand that. You don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying though.

The levarite marriage doesn't change a genealogy. Lets say that Joseph died and his brother married and had a child with Mary instead. That first son, lets assume its Jesus, would still be given the name of Joseph. So the genealogy would still go through Joseph regardless.

Now, we can go back to say the father of Joseph. Lets assume, because Matthew and Luke name a different father for Joseph, that we have a case of a levarite marriage here, and that Jacob and Heli are brothers. They both are said to have the same father, Matthan, but their grandfather is different. One says Eleazar and the other says Levi.

In a levarite marriage, wouldn't the grandfather of those two men still be the same figure? After all, they are brothers. And lets say it is a levarite marriage. Why don't the two Gospels then still name the same figure, because after all, in a levarite marriage, the first son would be given the name of the dead brother. It wouldn't change the genealogy.

That's the problem you face with the claim that a levarite marriage explains it. In fact, it doesn't. Because if nothing else, the grandfather of Jacob and Heli, even if there is a levarite marriage there, should still be the same person. They shouldn't have two different grandfathers.

 

[omega2xx]

I don't think it matters. Whether Jesus did miracles or not really matters little to me, and thus I don't really care. I never said that G-d doesn't do miracles, I said historically, one can not verify such. And being a historian, I can't verify any miracle by Jesus, and thus my beliefs on the matter are inconsequential.
That's not how a genealogy works. Either Jesus descended from Nathan, or from Solomon. He had to descend from one. He can't descend from both.
No, no they aren't. Being descended from either would have been enough. He would, nevertheless, be a descendant of King David. Now, your argument here is based on faith, not by actual evidence. Neither Matthew or Luke said that they were trying to establish anything, and that the other could establish something else. No, both stated that they were making a genealogy of Jesus. As in, Jesus was the son of Joseph, who was the son of ... the son of .... etc. Not once does it state that he was the son of ... but instead we will go through someone else to make a different argument.

What you're doing here is adding to the Gospels.
I fully understand that. You don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying though.

The levarite marriage doesn't change a genealogy. Lets say that Joseph died and his brother married and had a child with Mary instead. That first son, lets assume its Jesus, would still be given the name of Joseph. So the genealogy would still go through Joseph regardless.

Now, we can go back to say the father of Joseph. Lets assume, because Matthew and Luke name a different father for Joseph, that we have a case of a levarite marriage here, and that Jacob and Heli are brothers. They both are said to have the same father, Matthan, but their grandfather is different. One says Eleazar and the other says Levi.

In a levarite marriage, wouldn't the grandfather of those two men still be the same figure? After all, they are brothers. And lets say it is a levarite marriage. Why don't the two Gospels then still name the same figure, because after all, in a levarite marriage, the first son would be given the name of the dead brother. It wouldn't change the genealogy.

That's the problem you face with the claim that a levarite marriage explains it. In fact, it doesn't. Because if nothing else, the grandfather of Jacob and Heli, even if there is a levarite marriage there, should still be the same person. They shouldn't have two different grandfathers.

I don't think it matters. Whether Jesus did miracles or not really matters little to me, and thus I don't really care. I never said that G-d doesn't do miracles, I said historically, one can not verify such. And being a historian, I can't verify any miracle by Jesus, and thus my beliefs on the matter are inconsequential.
That's not how a genealogy works. Either Jesus descended from Nathan, or from Solomon. He had to descend from one. He can't descend from both.
No, no they aren't. Being descended from either would have been enough. He would, nevertheless, be a descendant of King David. Now, your argument here is based on faith, not by actual evidence. Neither Matthew or Luke said that they were trying to establish anything, and that the other could establish something else. No, both stated that they were making a genealogy of Jesus. As in, Jesus was the son of Joseph, who was the son of ... the son of .... etc. Not once does it state that he was the son of ... but instead we will go through someone else to make a different argument.

What you're doing here is adding to the Gospels.
I fully understand that. You don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying though.

The levarite marriage doesn't change a genealogy. Lets say that Joseph died and his brother married and had a child with Mary instead. That first son, lets assume its Jesus, would still be given the name of Joseph. So the genealogy would still go through Joseph regardless.

Now, we can go back to say the father of Joseph. Lets assume, because Matthew and Luke name a different father for Joseph, that we have a case of a levarite marriage here, and that Jacob and Heli are brothers. They both are said to have the same father, Matthan, but their grandfather is different. One says Eleazar and the other says Levi.

In a levarite marriage, wouldn't the grandfather of those two men still be the same figure? After all, they are brothers. And lets say it is a levarite marriage. Why don't the two Gospels then still name the same figure, because after all, in a levarite marriage, the first son would be given the name of the dead brother. It wouldn't change the genealogy.

That's the problem you face with the claim that a levarite marriage explains it. In fact, it doesn't. Because if nothing else, the grandfather of Jacob and Heli, even if there is a levarite marriage there, should still be the same person. They shouldn't have two different grandfathers.

Since you know everything, move on or lets call it quits.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Where?

Jesus says lead non resistance, that you shouldn't take an eye for an ear mouth or any thing of the sort. On the sermon on the mount.

 

[fallingblood]

Since you know everything, move on or lets call it quits.

That's bearing false witness. I have never claimed to know everything, and I've said I'm willing to change my view, if evidence can be provided for a different view. You haven't done that.

 

[savagewind]

That's bearing false witness. I have never claimed to know everything, and I've said I'm willing to change my view, if evidence can be provided for a different view. You haven't done that.

Maybe you have not hear, but, sarcasm is above the law.....or so they say.

 

[omega2xx]

Jesus says lead non resistance, that you shouldn't take an eye for an ear mouth or any thing of the sort. On the sermon on the mount.

How about chapter and verse. The sermon on the mount does not even mention those things.

 

[omega2xx]

That's bearing false witness. I have never claimed to know everything, and I've said I'm willing to change my view, if evidence can be provided for a different view. You haven't done that.

Every thing i say, you say is wrong, so I used a little sarcasm.

If the Bible doesn't convince you, you are wrong, I certainly can't.

 

[savagewind]

How about chapter and verse. The sermon on the mount does not even mention those things.

Matthew 5:38-42

 

[omega2xx]

Matthew 5:38-42

You are right. I stopped to soon. Thanks.

 

[MonkeyFire]

How about chapter and verse. The sermon on the mount does not even mention those things.

Matthew 5:38-39
[5:38] "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' [39] But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person.

 

[psychoslice]

Yes it is, with many other problems also, its just not reliable at all,.

 

[fallingblood]

Every thing i say, you say is wrong, so I used a little sarcasm.

If the Bible doesn't convince you, you are wrong, I certainly can't.

I'm not saying everything you say is wrong. I'm trying to get you to actually address the issue with a fully thought out argument. Most of what I've said you've ignored, and the one topic we have focused on, you won't expand on as to why a levarite marriage clears up the inconsistencies. If you could explain that, I would be fine with it. But just stating that a levarite marriage solves the one discrepancy, when there are more discrepancies, and not actually explaining how it solves it, doesn't really address anything.

As a side note, the Bible doesn't say there was a levarite marriage, so I'm not sure how that would prove me wrong.

Yes it is, with many other problems also, its just not reliable at all,.

I won't say it isn't reliable at all. Instead, I think if we treat it as similar other works, we can get some reliability. In terms of theological ideas, or philosophical ideas, we can consider it reliable in that it accurately reflects at least one flavor of Judaism at the time of writing.

When it comes to historical research, it is a lot less reliable, but it stands as basically our only source for many historical events, so I think we have to use it anyway.

 

[omega2xx]

I'm not saying everything you say is wrong. I'm trying to get you to actually address the issue with a fully thought out argument. Most of what I've said you've ignored, and the one topic we have focused on, you won't expand on as to why a levarite marriage clears up the inconsistencies. If you could explain that, I would be fine with it. But just stating that a levarite marriage solves the one discrepancy, when there are more discrepancies, and not actually explaining how it solves it, doesn't really address anything.

As a side note, the Bible doesn't say there was a levarite marriage, so I'm not sure how that would prove me wrong.

I won't say it isn't reliable at all. Instead, I think if we treat it as similar other works, we can get some reliability. In terms of theological ideas, or philosophical ideas, we can consider it reliable in that it accurately reflects at least one flavor of Judaism at the time of writing.

Other works have not been inspired by God. How do you know what those other words say are true. I can guarantee no matter what you determine to be true, there will b some who disagree with you.

When it comes to historical research, it is a lot less reliable, but it stands as basically our only source for many historical events, so I think we have to use it anyway.

Understanding history will not help anyone understand the Bible. Archeology has proved many things that were said untrue at one time, and it has never disproved anything the Bible says. This is mainly about what the Bible says about the names of people and cities.

 

[fallingblood]

Other works have not been inspired by God. How do you know what those other words say are true. I can guarantee no matter what you determine to be true, there will b some who disagree with you.

Can you prove no other work has been inspired by G-d? Statements of faith can't be proven, and that's really what you have here. And I'm happy with disagreement, as it encourages conversation, and both parties can learn. I'm open to people disagreeing with me. I do expect them to offer a real argument though, and not just demand that I accept their truth, without explaining why.

Understanding history will not help anyone understand the Bible. Archeology has proved many things that were said untrue at one time, and it has never disproved anything the Bible says. This is mainly about what the Bible says about the names of people and cities.

Sure it will. History helps a lot in understanding the Bible. To fully realize Jesus, one has to understand the historical period in which he is coming from. To understand what the prophets said, one has to understand their historical periods. That is why there is a considerable amount of the Bible focused on history.