The contradiction can be resolved, but the most popular apologetic requires the explanation that occasionally, the Bible does not mean what it says. Which, to my way of thinking, does even more damage to the credibility of the Bible.Phred said:
"The answer to this supposed contradiction is relatively simple, but requires some explanation. Most scholars today agree that the first seventeen verses in the first chapter of Matthew give the genealogy of Joseph, while Luke gives that of Mary, making Jacob the father of Joseph and Heli the father of Mary. This is shown by the two narrations of the virgin birth. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the story only from Josephs perspective, while Luke 1:26-56 is told wholly from Marys point of view. A logical question to ask is why Joseph is mentioned in both genealogies? The answer is again quite simple. Luke follows strict Hebrew tradition in mentioning only the names of males. Therefore, in this case, Mary is designated by her husbands name."UMP said:
Ironically, you contradict yourself.JohnR7 said:
But it hasn't been established as the truth; merely, it is a set of claims, mostly unfalsifiable and untestable, which are nevertheless contradictory in some of the few falsifiable and testable claims made.UMP said:
Break in topic:OccamsLaser said:
Apart from the obvious fact that neither geneaology is directly attributed (or both are explicitly routed through Joseph), there are some fundamental contradictions in the lineages. The author of Luke wrote that the Messiah must sit on the throne of David. Yet one of the lineages goes through not David's line, but through David's brother Nathan - and the other lineage includes names of people who were explicitly excommunicated from the line of David's throne, i.e. Jeconiah.JohnR7 said:
How is it you know what the devil wants? There could be a verse in the Bible which says that the devil can use Scripture to suit his own purposes, but that doesn't necessarily imply that there must be contradictions. Jesus seems to be guilty of the same thing, when He says "You know that the Scripture says X, but I tell you it must be Y." For example, Jesus says that the Scripture claims that a married man who sleeps with a woman not his wife commits adultery, but Jesus goes on to expand that anyone who even thinks about it commits adultery. While technically not a contradiction, it is a case of Jesus using Scripture in the same way that the devil is said to use Scripture.
Paul sounds like a senator on the hot seat, answering a probing question with "That's a good question. Are there any more questions?"
Sounds like Paul is rather critical of the "endless genealogies" in Matthew and Luke, along with the Old Testament books of I and II Chronicles, which read with all the riveting fascination of the Manhattan Phone Book. Probably what Paul meant is to ignore fables and endless genealogies, except for those found in the Bible.
Blatant begging the question; Paul's recommended strategy for contentious questions is to run away.
Again, blatant poisoning the well - it seems to be the Logical Fallacy of the Month lately. The contradiction is not resolved by claiming that those who raise the contradiction are insincere or dishonest seekers, or that those who refrain from bringing them up are upstanding good people. A charge of dishonesty must be established; simply claiming someone is dishonest for examining a Bible contradiction isn't enough.
My newspaper reports details of non-supernatural events (OK, there are newspapers like Weekly World News which cross that line) which can be checked and verified or falsified - and they frequently are. Typos and misprints can be clarified through a published correction, and newspapers hire people in the role of "editor" who are responsible to make sure they don't happen in the first place. And any paper which knowingly misquotes without retracting would irreparably damage its reputation and find itself out of business quite soon. The presence of errors in a newspaper does not invalidate "the entire body of human literature," so your conclusion is a bit hasty.The Midge said:
The "same event" in my example is the so-called Resurrection of the Saints described in the Gospel of Matthew. It's not even mentioned in the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John, even though an event of that magnitude would be prima facie evidence of the divinity of Jesus, which was what they were all building a case for. If it was indeed a different viewpoint, then that viewpoint would be based on being completely unaware of an unprecedented supernatural event in the same city which would strongly support their claim. If they left that detail out, their credibility as reporters is clobbered.
Actually, it's a book mass-produced, bound, and distributed much the same as any other book, with a few different channels of distribution. If you're referring to the original manuscripts, they don't exist. If you're referring to the earliest extant manuscripts, then yes, they're very old books. But "not being a single edition of a paper" seems to be an excuse explaining the presence of contradictions and omissions like the Resurrection of the Saints big enough to drive a truck through.
What's the point? Are you asking me to imagine it's true, as evidence that it's true? How would anyone possibly claim to know the motives of scribes during the Dark Ages and earlier?
Jeremiah 20:7 indicates that God deceived the prophet, and other versions of the Bible euphemized "deceived" into "enticed", which seems to have ironed out that unpleasant wrinkle. If there were no instances of mistranslation or error, then all versions of the Bible would read the same. Clearly, they don't.
Since when is that a "fact"? Is it a fact that no unintentional errors were possible, either? What does that have to do with the complete absense of any mention of the resurrected bodies in Mark, Luke, and John?
Hi there!OccamsLaser said:
Actually, from the text of the Bible, raising people from the dead seemed to be a fairly common occurrence in first-century Israel... it was considered to be an "evidence" to the Jews of the power of God... and the power of the Messiah and His disciples.
If you take a closer look at who the gospels were directed to... then you see more of the importance of what was stress and what was omitted and why.
Hi there!OccamsLaser said:
Hi there!OccamsLaser said:
Interesting, but irrelevant. We're not questioning whether an earthquake could happen, but rather how it could have been missed or ignored by the authors of the other three Gospels.Serapha said:
Not on the scale of what is described in Matthew 27:52-53 as "many holy people" who were resurrected. There are claims of perhaps three or four people raised from the dead by Jesus, including Lazarus, and a few others who may have been brought back to life by Paul or Peter.
Evidently it wasn't good enough evidence to persuade the authors of Mark, Luke, and John to include it in their books which were trying to establish exactly those points.
You misunderstand the problem. In this example, it's a case of one author reporting an amazing, incredible event in a city, while the other three authors did not even mention the event, even though it would have strongly supported their assertions.Well, I am of four children, and when something happened when I was a kid, mom heard four different stories. So was anyone lying? No.... but it was always four different stories of how it happened. Each story was what was important to the child to insure that they were not blamed for the problem
I've read the Bible cover to cover five times, and the Gospels perhaps 100 times. Obviously, the different Gospels and Epistles were addressed to different audiences, but that doesn't explain why a huge event, a prime piece of evidence of the basic message they were trying to convey, was completely missing in three of the four Gospels.
To get a better understanding of the eclipse and the forces that caused the earthquake, please refer toOccamsLaser said:
Interesting. I thought the Bible was written by God.brightlights said:
Hi there!OccamsLaser said:
Talk about setting your bar low. What do you expect to read:Serapha said:
Take a stave, or not take a stave?Serapha said:Hi there!
Absolutely, please share....
I love a Bible challenge. I haven't found a "contradiction" yet that isn't reconciled by either going to the Greek or Hebrew, the original Jewish custom, or the archaeological or historical evidences.
Then there was no need to include the details of Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection in Matthew, but they're there in abundance.Serapha said:
