|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 24, 2006 20:34:08 GMT -5
We've been studying the Epistles in New Testament, and I've heard a lot about books such as 2 Peter that weren't really written by whom they said they were. So now I want to hear the other side of the story - that the Bible is flawless - and where else to get that but from here?
It was quite common for people back in that day and time to write pseudonmymously. Since some of these books very clearly weren't written by who they claim they were (I will just shake my head and pity you if you honestly claim that all of them were, sorry), isn't that a lie and a flaw?
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 24, 2006 22:49:58 GMT -5
It seems as if you are making the presupposition that the books of the Bible that were accepted as scripture were not written by who they claimed to be written by, and the Christians on this board don't believe that. So I'm not sure I understand your question in light of that fact. It seems as if you've already made up your mind about the authorship issue. Are you wanting someone to tell you why we believe the Bible is flawless, or why we believe the Bible authors were who the Bible says they were?
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 25, 2006 0:07:14 GMT -5
*looks at Jules... and shakes his head*
Well, this will go OT a bit, but it is in response to your post, Jules. If it's deemed too off-topic, could an admin please point that out and I'll start a seperate thread. Or maybe have the title of this one changed...
I don't simply presuppose... I'm betting everything on it. Piles and piles of evidence lay before you that there might be one solitary thing wrong in a book and many people on this board refuse to acknowledge it. *pauses and shakes his head again*
Blind faith. Very clearly and unarguably blind faith. A grand example of one of the 5 Warning Signs of Evil in Religion. I wish I still had that book on me... *sigh* but I sent it home so I wouldn't have to pack it later. It's a good book - I suggest you read it.
I'll sum it up as inflexibility, though. This is this because I/it say/says it is... I'm sorry, but God gave you 5 senses to use them, not waste them. You are not a robot, nor are you meant to be. If God wanted such he would have made such.
*takes a breath and tries not to be too opinionated and instead move more towards evidence and light*
Alright, let's see... to give you an actual response to your questions, Jules, yes please, explain to me again why you think the Bible is flawless as well as why you think Peter was the author of second Peter, even though a vast majority of many, many scholars more educated than you agree that 2 Peter was not written my him.
If you all would show a little flexibility, a little breathing room, then I would feel so much better for you. Honestly, I'm worried about you =| It's almost like you're so scared to live in the real world where there aren't constants that you fight everything tooth and nail, no matter how unreasonable the fight is. And I say these things from my heart.
I would have understood things better if you had said that the book was meant to be included in the Bible despite the author... it's honestly not a huge deal. Do I think the Bible is perfect? You could say that. Can something be perfect and still be 'flawed'? Well yes. Look at life - it's perfect, but not everything is all happy-happy joy-joy. It's all about your viewpoint. Who says that contradictions and pseudonyms in the Bible are a bad thing? I'd say it's amazing as it starts you off on thinking on your own... like God intended...
Gah, I better stop before I attempt to remove the cornerstone from most if not all religions
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 25, 2006 10:19:34 GMT -5
wow, what a critical and judgmental spirit you have there hopeful.....it certainly does not motivate me to respond to your questions, although I do have an answer of course. There are so many unbelievers on this board now with reasonable questions made in a teachable spirit and humility, I would prefer to spend my time with them, even if they don't agree with what I say, they at least are respectful and ask their questions in a manner that indicates they don't already have all the answers. I too am on this board to learn from others, not just the Christians here, but the non-Christians as well. THat is what makes for a healthy and profitable, two-way discussion. Interaction. Engaging ideas. Both parties.
Your post here indicates to me you have deemed yourself as more informed, educated, open-minded, and wise on all fronts than those who disagree with you. So what is the point of you being here or trying to pick a fight under the guise of asking questions?
Nothing against you personally, but your motives in starting this thread are clear as a bell..and I will be no part of it. My apologies if this sounds abrupt, I just don't have time to spend arguing with someone who just wants to argue and not learn.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 25, 2006 12:04:46 GMT -5
I've tried being to be one of those 'unbelievers .. with questions made in a teachable spirit and humility', as you put it, and have gotten repeatedly ignored.
I admit that my posts in this thread have been as you said - judging and critical. For that, I apologize. I am of the opinion, however, that it's no different from the responses I've received on this board.
My motives in starting this thread were just as I stated in the very first paragraph. The only difference between this and most of my other posts is that this is one of the few (second?) threads I've started myself - usually I only post in reponse to others. Maybe I'll stick to that...
Again, I apologize for my evangelism. Please allow me a second chance. To restate the topic of this thread in a more appropriate manner:
We've been studying the Epistles in New Testament, and I've heard a lot about books such as 2 Peter that weren't really written by whom they said they were. I would like to hear the other side of the story - that the Bible is flawless - and where else to get that but from here?
Jules, could you (or someone else) please explain to me why you think the Bible is flawless, including why you think Peter was the author of second Peter?
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 25, 2006 22:13:08 GMT -5
I believe the Bible to be flawless for several reason. I will exclude the most obvious one, that being that the Bibleitself claims to be flawless. Because you are not a person of faith, I know this is a ludicrous claim so I will circumvent it and just illustrate through other means... 1) the Bible tells its readers to "test everything" (1 Thess 5:21) why? Why would the Bible actually set itself up to be tested and possibly doubted? So that it would be set apart as the one tru revelation of GOd;s Word and to prevent other books from being put on the same level. 2) I have never ofund contradiction in reading the Bible, what I have found in my studies is that there is layer upon layer of harmony, depth and wisdom that is so intricate and perfect that mere men, apart from divine inspiration and leading, could accomplish 3) it contains historical evidence demonstrated to be fact through numerous archeological discoveries 4) it contains HUNDREDS of fulfilled prophecies (some repeatedly) that are so specific that they could not possibly be replicated by man simply to "prove" the validity of the Bible 5) it has numerous accounts of scientific insights that were not discovered by man until hundreds or thousands of years later 6) numerous scientists, archeologists, and others who have set out to disprove either the Bible itself or Christianity were converted as a result 7) it is unique in it's circulation, that is, it was the first book ever printed, more read and more printed by any other book around the world ever since. 8) it is unique in ins translation in that it has been translated into over 1,400 languages, no other book even comes close to that - including "religious" books 9) it has been attacked, criticized and debated with cessation for centuries and has "somehow" managed to withstand the scrutiny and come out unscathed every time 10) it was written by over 40 authors with varying educational levels and occupations, on 3 continents over a span of about 1,500 - YET it is entirely in harmony with itself on all points. This may all seem "cicumstantial evidence" to you - but since you don't operate on faith, you should look at this evidence and give your verdict. Because either you take it on faith, or you take it on what I've outlined here. Either way, you won't be brining any new arguments or insight into this topic that has been long debated and proven to be without justification. As far as Peter being the author of 1 Peter, well...may seem simplistic, but it is claimed to have been written by Simon Peter, and just a few things that support (no details, but can provide if you require it, I'm trying ot save room here) 1) author refers to his own imminent death in terms to recall Jesus' words to Peter (1:14) cf. John 21:18, 19) 2) the author claims to have been an eyewitness of the Transfiguration (there were only 3 who were, Peter James and John) 3) author implies a connection between this epistle and 1 Peter (3:1) traditional arguments to Peter's authorship include stylistic differences from 1 Peter (rebuttal: there are numerous parallels between 2 Peter and Peter's sermond recorded in Acts (use of the Greek word eusebia "godliness" in 1:3, 6, 7, 3:11, and 3:12 a word occurring elsewhere in the NT only in the Pastoral epistles. Hope that answers your questions. I have not listed much detail as it would require much time and space, but if you would like specific examples of any of the above concerning the inerrancy of the Bible please let me know - only if you are SERIOUS about looking into it though
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 25, 2006 22:15:23 GMT -5
also, I have to ask, even if it wasn't written by Peter, but was attributed to him, what would the big deal be? The content of it was tested and shown to be enough to be included in the canonization. Some books such as Hebrews we will never know who wrote them, but they are still included. I guess I don't see the point in questioning authorship, even if you were right and it was written by someone else, would it detract at all from the basic fact that it is still inspired scripture?
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 26, 2006 0:01:45 GMT -5
1) The Bible would set itself up to be tested simply because that makes good evidence of confidence. It's like smiling and saying "Bring it on" to any challenge.
2) Most of your points (3-9, give or take) identify it as a great book. I've never claimed it wasn't. I simply don't think it's perfect.
3) I have an issue with your second and tenth point, however. This is actual my point altogether. I've put this question up here twice now, and no one's responded. Third time's a charm?
Look up the geneaology of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke and then in the Gospel of John. They aren't the same. One of them (sorry, I forget which one) forces the number 14 between I Believe Abraham, then David, then Jesus. So in that one David was the 14th descendant of Abraham and Jesus the 14th of David. This was done to stress the number 7, which was a divine number in Jewish numerology. And what's 14 but twice 7? I may be a little messed up on those statements, but I think that's generally accurate to what I've been taught.
Now, to your points on 2 Peter. I can claim the first three things, as well. Doesn't make me Peter, does it? In the same sense, I can take a single previous writing attributed to Peter (by Luke) and emulate it. Doesn't make me Peter. There are numerous inconsistencies that cause this majority agreement that Peter wasn't the author of 2 Peter.
Finally, your second post. Please allow me to refer to my first post (edited, since I spoke in err in that post).
It was quite common for people back in that day and time to write pseudonmymously. Since some of these books can be highly argued and are widely believed by experts that they weren't written by who they claim they were, isn't that a lie and a flaw?
I agree - it doesn't really take away from its significance as scripture. But it would make a point - the Bible isn't perfect. I don't like all of this claiming that the Bible is perfect. God is perfect - he makes perfect things. Life - our existence as a whole - is perfect. I'd consider using God and Life as interchangable words, but people might get confused, lol. To claim that a book is perfect, however, seems to put it on a level equal to God. And I've listened to many people say that the Bible is the Word of God. Nevertheless, it goes through an imperfect vessel. Forgive me, but how does perfection pass through an imperfect vessel?
Claiming the Bible is perfect also reminds me of what someone (Was it Jesse, maybe?) mentioned in a post. I think he asked if it was worship of the Creation over the worship of God. In the same sense, is this worship of the Word over the worship of God? Or anywhere near him? I don't like that thought at all...
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 26, 2006 10:45:40 GMT -5
The Bible is on the same level as GOd, because John 1 says that In the beginning was the Word (Speaking of Jesus) and the Word was God. Then the Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. Just like your "word" is a reflection of your character (if you say I give you my word it doesn't mean much unless you have proven yourself to be trustwrothy, etc) the same with God God's Word is a reflection of His character. It is a revelation of His character.
God is perfect, as you said, so His Word is perfect.
If you don't believe the Bible is perfect, then fine. Don't. I obviously can't make you nor will I try. But you DO have a consicence and THAT alone should lead you to the conclusion that there is right and wrong, values, standards, rules, commandments, whatever you want to call it. Where did it all come from? Coincidence that every single person has a conscience and these things just so happen to coincide with the Bible's teachings?
Have you ever spent any time reading the Bible with an open mind, and not a critical spirit? I don't mean that as an insult or an assumption that you have. I know the power of the Word. So my challenge to you would be to open the Word, start reading and ask God to reveal truth to you. I have that much faith in the Word alone. It will accomplish what it was meant to. So until you have spent some time reading the Bible with such an attitude, it is pointless to argue about it's inerrancy.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 26, 2006 12:29:43 GMT -5
Coincidence that every single person has a conscience and these things just so happen to coincide with the Bible's teachings?
Not at all. Wouldn't people write a book that reflected their conscience?
The Bible is on the same level as GOd, because John 1 says that In the beginning was the Word (Speaking of Jesus) and the Word was God. Then the Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. Just like your "word" is a reflection of your character (if you say I give you my word it doesn't mean much unless you have proven yourself to be trustwrothy, etc) the same with God God's Word is a reflection of His character. It is a revelation of His character.
As is his Creation, which he spoke into existence. Same thing, right?
Have you ever spent any time reading the Bible with an open mind, and not a critical spirit? I don't mean that as an insult or an assumption that you have. I know the power of the Word. So my challenge to you would be to open the Word, start reading and ask God to reveal truth to you. I have that much faith in the Word alone. It will accomplish what it was meant to. So until you have spent some time reading the Bible with such an attitude, it is pointless to argue about it's inerrancy.
Yes, dear Jules, I feel that I have. I try to look at everything with an open mind and heart. And although you "don't mean that as an insult or an assumption that you have" looked at the Bible with only a critical spirit, you've done precisely that, as with this statement: "So until you have spent some time reading the Bible with such an attitude, it is pointless to argue about it's inerrancy."
Again, it's not a matter of whether or not I believe in the Bible, I simply don't think it's flawless. It's not even a matter of wether or not there's anything wrong with the flaws. It's that God and God alone is perfect. Everything else is a reflection of his perfection. However, that's not the same as being perfect. God exists both outside this existence and permeates it. Or maybe it's not even that.
~~~ I'd like to note that for the third time I have been refused a response to a valid point. So I'd like to state my conclusion until the point that someone brings up a reasonable argument:
The Bible is not flawless. The difference in geneaologies of Luke and John show that. ~~~
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 26, 2006 12:47:32 GMT -5
What geneaologies in John are you talking about....?.
I think you mean the geneaologies in Matthew and Luke, right?
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 26, 2006 15:28:38 GMT -5
Ah, thank you Josh - I made a big mistake there. Yes, Matthew and Luke. I think I jumped to John because of how different it is from the other three Gospels. I apologize.
I don't prefer the source I'm pulling this from (the .NetBible), but here's the gist of it:
Luke 3:23 So Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years old. He was the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 3:24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 3:25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 3:26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 3:27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 3:28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 3:29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 3:30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 3:31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 3:32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, 3:33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 3:34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 3:35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 3:36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 3:37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan, 3:38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Matthew 1:1 This is the record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
1:2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 1:3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah (by Tamar), Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, 1:4 Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, 1:5 Salmon the father of Boaz (by Rahab), Boaz the father of Obed (by Ruth), Obed the father of Jesse, 1:6 and Jesse the father of David the king.
David was the father of Solomon (by the wife of Uriah), 1:7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, 1:8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, Joram the father of Uzziah, 1:9 Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 1:10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, 1:11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.
1:12 After the deportation to Babylon, Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 1:13 Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, Abiud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, 1:14 Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, Achim the father of Eliud, 1:15 Eliud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, 1:16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.
1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to Christ, fourteen generations.
Please, compare.
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 26, 2006 17:03:47 GMT -5
i]
I'd like to note that for the third time I have been refused a response to a valid point. So I'd like to state my conclusion until the point that someone brings up a reasonable argument:
The Bible is not flawless. The difference in geneaologies of Luke and John show that. ~~~Hopeful, it is quite difficult to address multiple questions and comments in one response...I was not ignoring your question. There is simply too much to address. Are oyu going to go through every single alleged contradiction in the Bible and ask for a response? There are books written JUST for that reason. Ask some reasonable questions. You'd do well to have some patience and not be so critical of others when they are TRYING to answer your questions and respond. First, the non-believers on this board claim we are ignoring them, then when we try to answer their questions, we get railed on, insulted, and the like. All for the glory of God of course, but I won't waste my time dealing with hidden agendas, arguments, critical spirits, and hardened hearts. I have attempted, in love, to reach out and answer questions as requested, not be critical or judgmental, but the fact of the matter is, I HAVE YET TO SEE ANY INDICATION OF REPENTANCE, HUMILITY, or RESPECT from so many of the new people here. What's the deal? You guys start out (some of you) in that tone, some have admitted fault and bad posts in bad moods, etc. but it always comes back to the same place: divided. So, I am back to preaching the law to all unbelievers on this board: repentance, sin and judgment alone. Because giving the "soft message" of grace and forgiveness is going nowhere. To my brothers and sisters on the board, I truly apologize for trying to extend grace before it's rightful time. Not that I haven't presented the law as well, but in my disobedience I have extended grace and in essence thrown pearls to swine as Jesus said. Please forgive me.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 26, 2006 19:30:50 GMT -5
Jules, I feel you're simply evading the question again. If it happened once, or even twice, then it wouldn't bother me. But three times tends to make me wonder. Yes, this was one point among many, I'll admit, but it hasn't been previously. At times on this board I feel that people ignore valid points and posts or simply refuse to respond to them for some tangent of a reason. That's what you've done in this thread, Jules. Yes, sometimes (most of the time, with me, lol) it's a lot to respond to, but it's interesting which posts are responded to prompty and which ones are conveniently forgotten. It's actually a psychology thing... screening, or selective memory/attention... something like that...
Nevertheless, you already made your assumption after saying you wouldn't and stated you wouldn't respond to me any more, based on that assumption. If you respond to no other part of this, please respond to this paragraph.
Hopeful, it is quite difficult to address multiple questions and comments in one response...I was not ignoring your question. There is simply too much to address. Are oyu going to go through every single alleged contradiction in the Bible and ask for a response? There are books written JUST for that reason.
I don't want to talk to a book. I want to talk to people. You. =) These boards are for discussions, right? A section was made just for this sort of thing.
First, the non-believers on this board claim we are ignoring them, then when we try to answer their questions, we get railed on, insulted, and the like. All for the glory of God of course, but I won't waste my time dealing with hidden agendas, arguments, critical spirits, and hardened hearts.
I would hope that I'm not included in that, but will go out on a limb and assume I am, since it was in a post directed to me. If that's the case, then I'd like to point out that I've apologized already for when I was in err. My agendas aren't hidden, nor are my arguments, I try not to be critical, and my heart is anything but hardened. Thank you.
I have attempted, in love, to reach out and answer questions as requested, not be critical or judgmental, but the fact of the matter is, I HAVE YET TO SEE ANY INDICATION OF REPENTANCE, HUMILITY, or RESPECT from so many of the new people here. What's the deal? You guys start out (some of you) in that tone, some have admitted fault and bad posts in bad moods, etc. but it always comes back to the same place: divided.
...Again, may I assume that's meant for me? I'm sorry if the assumption is wrong, but also again, it's in a post addressed generally to me. I don't think that should be applied to me, but it's not uncommon for me to be mistaken. The main thing I want to ask - the reason I seperated this paragraph from the first - is what do you mean it always comes back to the same place: 'divided'?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 26, 2006 21:25:09 GMT -5
There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary. Some critics may not accept this explanation no matter what reasoning is produced. Nevertheless, they should first realize that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy is of Mary and the other of Joseph, even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship. Second, do any critics actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies? Does anyone actually think that the Christians were so dense that they were unaware of the differences in the genealogy lists, closed their eyes and put the gospels into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice? Not at all. They knew the cultural context and had no problem with it knowing that one was of Joseph and the other of Mary. Third, notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph. Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph. Again, the early church knew this and had no problem with it. It is only the critics of today who narrow their vision into a literalness and require this to be a "contradiction" when in reality we have an explanation that is more than sufficient. www.carm.org/diff/2geneologies.htm
Sorry I didn't write it myself, but I would have pretty much said it in the same words.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 26, 2006 22:26:25 GMT -5
Thank you very much, Josh. Your explanation makes a lot of sense. Would you please explain a few more differences?
This one's pre-David. I'm thinking it's simply name differences (or... maybe incest?), but it does cause confusion:
Luke (David) 3:32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, 3:33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 3:34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham
Matthew 1:2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 1:3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah (by Tamar), Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, 1:4 Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, 1:5 Salmon the father of Boaz (by Rahab), Boaz the father of Obed (by Ruth), Obed the father of Jesse, 1:6 and Jesse the father of David the king.
Also, if you'll notice in Matthew, although the first part actually does list 14 names from Abraham to David, it only lists 13 from David to Jesus... but says 14 for both...
And actually, the book I'm reading now states that Matthew's geneaology is actually leaving things out, but because I don't know enough at this point I'll let Josh' point stand. The names are similar in many places, though... this might need more research.
But anyway, these are two more points I would appreciate someone helping to clear up. Please and thank you! ^_^
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 26, 2006 23:30:30 GMT -5
well then hopeful, ask away. Every apparent contradiction in the Bible. I'll answer. If it means you'll keep reading it, then it is worth the time. I apologize for being abrupt. It is just that I have taken the time recently to listen and respond and feel I am getting the run around and unfortunately took it out in part on you. I apologize and since you are truly seeking to find answers, I should have been more patient and understanding. I appreciate your willingness to learn and teachable spirit.
Since Josh has apparently already answered your question pertaining to contradictions, (and did so very well) is there another point you have concerns with or disagree with?
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 27, 2006 0:09:07 GMT -5
Uhmm... *points timidly to his last post, which states the two points he wants to bring up* *edits the last line so it's more clear*
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 27, 2006 13:54:59 GMT -5
Uhmm... *points timidly to his last post, which states the two points he wants to bring up* *edits the last line so it's more clear* fair enough for starters, what book are you reading right now? And where are you going to school, what class are you in?
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 27, 2006 16:44:21 GMT -5
School: Mercer University Class: New Testament (I've taken Old Testament and World Religions) Book: A Brief Introduction to the New Testament, by Bart Ehrman
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 28, 2006 10:03:36 GMT -5
What translation are you using?
The KJV says:
Luk 3:32 Which was [the son] of Jesse, which was [the son] of Obed, which was [the son] of Booz, which was [the son] of Salmon, which was [the son] of Naasson, 3:33 Which was [the son] of Aminadab, which was [the son] of Aram, which was [the son] of Esrom, which was [the son] of Phares, which was [the son] of Juda, 3:34 Which was [the son] of Jacob, which was [the son] of Isaac, which was [the son] of Abraham, which was [the son] of Thara, which was [the son] of Nachor,
Mat 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Mat 1:2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her [that had been the wife] of Urias;
I see no contridiction...
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 30, 2006 19:14:06 GMT -5
Perhaps my translation is a bad one - I'm a little too busy with finals to really worry over that. Perhaps you'll help me look into the other point, then?
if you'll notice in Matthew, although the first part [of the geneaology] actually does list 14 names from Abraham to David, it only lists 13 from David to Jesus... but says 14 for both...
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 2, 2006 15:10:30 GMT -5
Good question.
Well.. There are two different theories on that.
#1 that there was one missing or not mentioned and Matthew wanted to make sure that they knew there was 14 even though there was only 13 listed. I mean, why would someone write 14 and know there was 13? Unless we assume he couldn't count and no one who read the letter afterward caught it. I don't think that is possible. The Jewish people are very big into genealogies. It's not something they just pass by.
#2 They used the number 14 to help remember how many there were. Since there was 14 in the first 2 blocks they used the number 14 to help remember. The charts I have seen have started with Josias and would make it 14.
I am not really sure on which I agree with. I am studying it more. I am not convinced it is an "error." Let's think about this... The early church would have changed it if there was an error. Many, many, many have studied the genealogies very closely.
I'm curious did you catch this yourself? I am hoping you aren't just going to some atheist website and finding supposed contridictions.
Ecc 1:9 The thing that hath been, it [is that] which shall be; and that which is done [is] that which shall be done: and [there is] no new [thing] under the sun.
Ecc 1:10 Is there [any] thing whereof it may be said, See, this [is] new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
|
|
|
Post by dmclayton on May 3, 2006 17:18:21 GMT -5
the last eight to ten verses in mark are debated, and often cut out of modern versions of the bible. the geneaologies are not a debate for the reasons josh mentioned, but i will contest that what is in question when it comes to biblical errancy is god's 'unchanging' character. god establishes one thing, and then changes it later. this, and other contradictions, make for a good discussion. anyway, maybe later...
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on May 11, 2006 21:22:31 GMT -5
Sorry for the late response, Josh. It's been a long week. Thank you for your response.
No, I don't go to some atheist website. I think I could take offense to that, honestly. It seems like you've made the assumption that I'm an atheist, which is untrue. Not saying that you have made that inference, mind you, but that's how it could be taken. This was something pointed out to me in my New Testament class by my Baptist professor. And I'm not a fan of atheism, for the record =)
So then the geneaology is inaccurate? There's one missing, so the section simply skips it and lies to make it work out?
So they fudged the math? 13 = 14 is a mathematical error, lol
14 would be a very powerful number in Jewish gamatria. 14 is twice 7, which is the number of the divine. The intent seems to be to show that Jesus is divine through numbers.
I don't think it's really a big thing, personally. However, I still think it demonstrates that the Bible isn't flawless. That's not to say that it's not amazing nor to say that it's not "perfect," but then we get into explaining definitions and ideas and... yeah. So anyway, I look forward to more input about this.
Oh, and those theories are both very good ones! Both make great sense.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on May 28, 2006 21:02:15 GMT -5
Bump
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 29, 2006 11:48:38 GMT -5
bump?
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on May 29, 2006 13:22:29 GMT -5
Bumpity Bump Bump...
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 29, 2006 14:14:55 GMT -5
<bump>?
|
|