| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Aaron Johnson" |
| Date: |
22 Jan 2004 01:29:23 PM |
| Object: |
Daily Bible Contradiction |
Who was Joseph's father?
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus."
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son
of Heli."
.
|
|
| User: "Frank Reichenbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
22 Jan 2004 02:16:27 PM |
|
|
"Aaron Johnson" <akjmicro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c2c4ad7.0401221128.3b069813@posting.google.com...
Who was Joseph's father?
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus."
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son
of Heli."
Which version of the Bible? This may be an important issue. Is the passage
the same across various versions?
Frank
.
|
|
|
| User: "_AnonCoward" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
22 Jan 2004 03:12:21 PM |
|
|
"Frank Reichenbacher" <vesuvius@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:qqmdnRqNP4_fso3dRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net...
:
: "Aaron Johnson" <akjmicro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: news:7c2c4ad7.0401221128.3b069813@posting.google.com...
: >
: > Who was Joseph's father?
: >
: > * Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of
: > whom was born Jesus."
: > vs.
: > * Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years
: > of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was
: > the son of Heli."
:
:
: Which version of the Bible? This may be an important issue. Is the
: passage the same across various versions?
:
: Frank
Ralf:
KJV and, yes, it's rendered consistently across versions. Matthew says
Jacob was Matthew's father whereas Luke says Jacob was Heli's son.
(http://www.blueletterbible.org/)
There are essentially two approaches to resolve this (that I'm aware of,
at least). The first is that Heli is Joseph's father in law. Of course,
there's nothing in the text that says, suggests or supports that
understanding, but if we assume the bible is inerrant, then that must be
what it means which proves the bible is inerrant.
The other approach is to argue that Heli is a kind of helenized or
romanized contraction of the name Jacob (or something along those
lines). However, since one line traces Joseph back to Solomon (Matthew -
who starts with Abraham and moves forward) and the other back to Nathan
(Luke, who works backwards and goes all the way back to Adam), this
approach is meaningless. So those who defend the doctrine of biblical
inerrancy are effectively stuck with the other approach which requires
them to ignore what the text actually says in order to make it fit their
interpretation.
Ralf
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
* ^~^ ^~^ *
* _ {| |} {| |} _ *
* /_``>*< >*<''_\ *
* (\--_)++) (++(_--/) *
-------------------------------------------------------------
Those who assert that scripture is inerrant or is to be
understood literally invariably find themselves confronted
with the need to ignore or distort the plain meaning of the
text. In the process, they change the scriptures to bring
them into conformance with their doctrine rather than
modifying their doctrine to bring it into conformance with
scripture.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harlequin" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
22 Jan 2004 05:10:04 PM |
|
|
"_AnonCoward" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in
news:A%WPb.3507$YG.163533@twister.southeast.rr.com:
"Frank Reichenbacher" <vesuvius@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:qqmdnRqNP4_fso3dRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net...
:
: "Aaron Johnson" <akjmicro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: news:7c2c4ad7.0401221128.3b069813@posting.google.com...
: >
: > Who was Joseph's father?
: >
: > * Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of
: > whom was born Jesus."
: > vs.
: > * Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years
: > of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was
: > the son of Heli."
:
: Which version of the Bible? This may be an important issue. Is the
: passage the same across various versions?
:
Ralf:
KJV and, yes, it's rendered consistently across versions. Matthew says
Jacob was Matthew's father whereas Luke says Jacob was Heli's son.
(http://www.blueletterbible.org/)
There are essentially two approaches to resolve this (that I'm aware of,
at least). The first is that Heli is Joseph's father in law. Of course,
there's nothing in the text that says, suggests or supports that
understanding, but if we assume the bible is inerrant, then that must be
what it means which proves the bible is inerrant.
The other approach is to argue that Heli is a kind of helenized or
romanized contraction of the name Jacob (or something along those
lines). However, since one line traces Joseph back to Solomon (Matthew -
who starts with Abraham and moves forward) and the other back to Nathan
(Luke, who works backwards and goes all the way back to Adam), this
approach is meaningless. So those who defend the doctrine of biblical
inerrancy are effectively stuck with the other approach which requires
them to ignore what the text actually says in order to make it fit their
interpretation.
It gets worse...
look at Matthew and you find that Salathiel and Zorobabel
who minor figures from the Old Testiment. These two are also in the Luke
version. Notice that the number of generations from David to Christ
is very different as well.
If looks at Matthew's list you see that verse 17 states that that
from Abraham to David, from David to the exile in Babylon,
and from that to Christ are all 14 generations. To make this
numerology work, the Mathhew list deletes generations listed
in the Old Testiment. Luke inserts a generation not listed
in Genesis. Meanwhile Luke and the OT disagree with Jude
of how many generations Enoch was from Adam.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
I am Mike and I approve this message.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Reichenbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
22 Jan 2004 03:42:48 PM |
|
|
"_AnonCoward" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:A%WPb.3507$YG.163533@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Frank Reichenbacher" <vesuvius@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:qqmdnRqNP4_fso3dRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net...
:
: "Aaron Johnson" <akjmicro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: news:7c2c4ad7.0401221128.3b069813@posting.google.com...
: >
: > Who was Joseph's father?
: >
: > * Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of
: > whom was born Jesus."
: > vs.
: > * Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years
: > of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was
: > the son of Heli."
:
:
: Which version of the Bible? This may be an important issue. Is the
: passage the same across various versions?
:
: Frank
Ralf:
KJV and, yes, it's rendered consistently across versions. Matthew says
Jacob was Matthew's father whereas Luke says Jacob was Heli's son.
(http://www.blueletterbible.org/)
There are essentially two approaches to resolve this (that I'm aware of,
at least). The first is that Heli is Joseph's father in law. Of course,
there's nothing in the text that says, suggests or supports that
understanding, but if we assume the bible is inerrant, then that must be
what it means which proves the bible is inerrant.
The other approach is to argue that Heli is a kind of helenized or
romanized contraction of the name Jacob (or something along those
lines). However, since one line traces Joseph back to Solomon (Matthew -
who starts with Abraham and moves forward) and the other back to Nathan
(Luke, who works backwards and goes all the way back to Adam), this
approach is meaningless. So those who defend the doctrine of biblical
inerrancy are effectively stuck with the other approach which requires
them to ignore what the text actually says in order to make it fit their
interpretation.
Or maybe Heli or Jacob were aliases intended to throw off the running dogs
of Roman Imperialism.
Or maybe Joseph wasn't really too sure who his father was.
Frank
Ralf
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
* ^~^ ^~^ *
* _ {| |} {| |} _ *
* /_``>*< >*<''_\ *
* (\--_)++) (++(_--/) *
-------------------------------------------------------------
Those who assert that scripture is inerrant or is to be
understood literally invariably find themselves confronted
with the need to ignore or distort the plain meaning of the
text. In the process, they change the scriptures to bring
them into conformance with their doctrine rather than
modifying their doctrine to bring it into conformance with
scripture.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Murdock" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
24 Jan 2004 01:51:36 PM |
|
|
"_AnonCoward" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message news:<A%WPb.3507$YG.163533@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
There are essentially two approaches to resolve this (that I'm aware of,
at least). The first is that Heli is Joseph's father in law.
[snip]
The other approach is to argue that Heli is a kind of helenized or
romanized contraction of the name Jacob
[snip]
How about if:
* Jacob and Heli were gay and lived together as "partners".
* They had both had adopted Joseph, who really was the biological son
of Jacob, as implied in Matthew.
* The writer of Luke was more tolerant of gay relationships than the
Christians of a later time, and thus regarded Heli also as Joseph's
"father" and Joseph as Heli's "son".
* The rest of the geneologies go back through heterosexual
relationships.
Contradiction solved. The Bible is inerrant!
---DPM
Ralf
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
* ^~^ ^~^ *
* _ {| |} {| |} _ *
* /_``>*< >*<''_\ *
* (\--_)++) (++(_--/) *
-------------------------------------------------------------
Those who assert that scripture is inerrant or is to be
understood literally invariably find themselves confronted
with the need to ignore or distort the plain meaning of the
text. In the process, they change the scriptures to bring
them into conformance with their doctrine rather than
modifying their doctrine to bring it into conformance with
scripture.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
24 Jan 2004 08:10:44 AM |
|
|
"Frank Reichenbacher" <vesuvius@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:qqmdnRqNP4_fso3dRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net...
"Aaron Johnson" <akjmicro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c2c4ad7.0401221128.3b069813@posting.google.com...
Who was Joseph's father?
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus."
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son
of Heli."
Which version of the Bible? This may be an important issue. Is the passage
the same across various versions?
Frank
This has been dealt with many times. One is the paternal, the other the
maternal genealogy. One is legal, the other biological. There's no
contradiction. Cannot you do any better than this?
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
|
| User: "_AnonCoward" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
24 Jan 2004 09:52:37 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:butuav$eje$0@pita.alt.net...
:
: "Frank Reichenbacher" <vesuvius@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
: news:qqmdnRqNP4_fso3dRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net...
: >
: > "Aaron Johnson" <akjmicro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > news:7c2c4ad7.0401221128.3b069813@posting.google.com...
: > > Who was Joseph's father?
: > >
: > > * Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary,
: > > of whom was born Jesus."
: > > vs.
: > > * Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years
: > > of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which
: > > was the son of Heli."
: > >
: >
: >
: > Which version of the Bible? This may be an important issue. Is the
: > passage the same across various versions?
: >
: > Frank
: >
:
: This has been dealt with many times. One is the paternal, the other
: the maternal genealogy. One is legal, the other biological. There's
: no contradiction. Cannot you do any better than this?
Ralf:
The problem with that answer is there is nothing in the text to support
it. Luke's genealogy is typically given as the maternal line but it
never says that.
Luke states clearly that Joseph was the son (not son in law) of Heli.
The greek follows this pattern starting with Joseph and going all the
way back to Adam and God himself (note: the spelling that follows is a
bastardized form of the greek - I apologize to any purists in advance):
jesous [...] huios joseph tou heli tou matthat
tou leui tou melchi tou lanna tou joseph [...]
tou meleas tou mainan tou mattatha tou nathan
tou david tou jesse [...] tou jakob tou isaak
tou abraam [...] tou enos tou seth tou adam
tou theos [God]
The same relationship between Joseph and Heli is used for the entire
genealogy: <SON> tou <FATHER>. The pattern of the relationship between
Joseph and Heli is identical throughout the full text. If Joseph is the
son in law of Heli, then every one in that genealogy is the son in law
of the person next in line, including Adam! Only Jesus is singled out in
this text regarding his relationship to Joseph. The word huios is used
indicating he was the male offspring or descendent of Joseph (note that
Matthew 1:1 uses the same word when describing Jesus as "the son of
David, the son of Abraham".
Mary is not mentioned or aluded to in that text at all. This passage is
talking about the beginning of Jesus' adult life. It starts with John
the Baptist then brings Jesus into the picture by having him baptized
followed by the Holy Spirit descending on him. From there it gives Jesus
lineage and follows up in the next verse with Jesus' temptation in the
wilderness. (etc., etc.). This has nothing to do with Mary.
The writers of the time understood the concept of in-law parents. John
18:13 speaks of Jesus' trial where he was taken first to Annas, the
father-in-law (pehtheros) of Caiaphas. Matthew 10:35 and Luke 12:53
speak of daughters-in-law and mothers-in-law. So if Heli was Joseph's
father-in-law, why not say so?
The passage that is used to <ahem> justify this particular
interpretation of the text is in Luke 3:23:
(KJV)
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being
(as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli,
It is the clause "(as was supposed)" that is being latched onto. The
logic goes something along these lines: "since Luke states Jesus was
only thought to be son of Joseph, it means that the genealogy is really
talking about Mary." But as I stated, this is not in the text and, in
spite of this desperate attempt to make it fit, is not supported by the
text.
No, the two genealogies contradict each other. Matthew traces Jesus'
pedigree - through Joseph - back to David via Solomon whereas Luke
traces Jesus' pegigree - also through Joseph - back to David via Nathan.
The only way one can invoke the "Luke is talking about Mary's lineage"
argument is to assume up front that the bible is inerrant. In which
case, we must introduce this ad hoc corruption of the text in order to
make it conform to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.
The biological versus legal genealogies argument doesn't resolve the
contradiction. All it really does is try to sweep the problem under the
rug with the hope that no one will notice.
Ralf
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
* ^~^ ^~^ *
* _ {| |} {| |} _ *
* /_``>*< >*<''_\ *
* (\--_)++) (++(_--/) *
-------------------------------------------------------------
Those who assert that scripture is inerrant or is to be
understood literally invariably find themselves confronted
with the need to ignore or distort the plain meaning of the
text. In the process, they change the scriptures to bring
them into conformance with their doctrine rather than
modifying their doctrine to bring it into conformance with
scripture.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick James" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
24 Jan 2004 11:05:47 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 10:52:37 -0500, AnonCoward wrote
(in message <9wwQb.7128$YG.526967@twister.southeast.rr.com>):
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:butuav$eje$0@pita.alt.net...
"Frank Reichenbacher" <vesuvius@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:qqmdnRqNP4_fso3dRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net...
"Aaron Johnson" <akjmicro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c2c4ad7.0401221128.3b069813@posting.google.com...
Who was Joseph's father?
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary,
of whom was born Jesus."
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years
of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which
was the son of Heli."
Which version of the Bible? This may be an important issue. Is the
passage the same across various versions?
Frank
This has been dealt with many times. One is the paternal, the other
the maternal genealogy. One is legal, the other biological. There's
no contradiction. Cannot you do any better than this?
Ralf:
The problem with that answer is there is nothing in the text to support
it.
Correct. This is another instance of literalists having to tamper with the
text to make their idelogy work.
Luke's genealogy is typically given as the maternal line but it
never says that.
_Neither_ text says anything even close.
Luke states clearly that Joseph was the son (not son in law) of Heli.
The greek follows this pattern starting with Joseph and going all the
way back to Adam and God himself (note: the spelling that follows is a
bastardized form of the greek - I apologize to any purists in advance):
jesous [...] huios joseph tou heli tou matthat
tou leui tou melchi tou lanna tou joseph [...]
tou meleas tou mainan tou mattatha tou nathan
tou david tou jesse [...] tou jakob tou isaak
tou abraam [...] tou enos tou seth tou adam
tou theos [God]
The same relationship between Joseph and Heli is used for the entire
genealogy: <SON> tou <FATHER>. The pattern of the relationship between
Joseph and Heli is identical throughout the full text. If Joseph is the
son in law of Heli, then every one in that genealogy is the son in law
of the person next in line, including Adam! Only Jesus is singled out in
this text regarding his relationship to Joseph. The word huios is used
indicating he was the male offspring or descendent of Joseph (note that
Matthew 1:1 uses the same word when describing Jesus as "the son of
David, the son of Abraham".
Mary is not mentioned or aluded to in that text at all. This passage is
talking about the beginning of Jesus' adult life. It starts with John
the Baptist then brings Jesus into the picture by having him baptized
followed by the Holy Spirit descending on him. From there it gives Jesus
lineage and follows up in the next verse with Jesus' temptation in the
wilderness. (etc., etc.). This has nothing to do with Mary.
Creationists have never let little things like facts get in their way before,
why should they start now?
The writers of the time understood the concept of in-law parents. John
18:13 speaks of Jesus' trial where he was taken first to Annas, the
father-in-law (pehtheros) of Caiaphas. Matthew 10:35 and Luke 12:53
speak of daughters-in-law and mothers-in-law. So if Heli was Joseph's
father-in-law, why not say so?
Because it wasn't so?
The passage that is used to <ahem> justify this particular
interpretation of the text is in Luke 3:23:
(KJV)
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being
(as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli,
It is the clause "(as was supposed)" that is being latched onto. The
logic goes something along these lines: "since Luke states Jesus was
only thought to be son of Joseph, it means that the genealogy is really
talking about Mary." But as I stated, this is not in the text and, in
spite of this desperate attempt to make it fit, is not supported by the
text.
No, the two genealogies contradict each other. Matthew traces Jesus'
pedigree - through Joseph - back to David via Solomon whereas Luke
traces Jesus' pegigree - also through Joseph - back to David via Nathan.
The only way one can invoke the "Luke is talking about Mary's lineage"
argument is to assume up front that the bible is inerrant. In which
case, we must introduce this ad hoc corruption of the text in order to
make it conform to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.
The biological versus legal genealogies argument doesn't resolve the
contradiction. All it really does is try to sweep the problem under the
rug with the hope that no one will notice.
Lots of people have noticed. Only those who worship a book instead of a God
give a damn.
--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
26 Jan 2004 08:16:41 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:52:37 +0000 (UTC), "_AnonCoward"
<abc@xyz.com> spake thusly:
: This has been dealt with many times. One is the paternal, the other
: the maternal genealogy. One is legal, the other biological. There's
: no contradiction. Cannot you do any better than this?
Ralf:
The problem with that answer is there is nothing in the text to support
it. Luke's genealogy is typically given as the maternal line but it
never says that.
It doesn't have to.
No, the two genealogies contradict each other.
Why don't you go talk to some Jews about this.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"In fact, there is a great deal more to the
creation/evolution controversy than meets the eye,
or rather than meets the carefully cultivated media
stereotype of 'creationists' as Bible quoting know
nothings who refuse to face up to the scientific
evidence. The creationists may be wrong about many
things, but they have at least one very important
point to argue, a point that has been thoroughly
obscured by all the attention paid to Noah's Flood
and other side issues. What science educators
propose to teach as 'evolution' and label it as fact,
is based not upon any incontrovertible empirical
evidence (scientifically proven facts, ed.), but upon
a highly controversial philosophical presupposition.
The controversy over evolution is therefore not going
to go away as people become better educated on the
subject. On the contrary, the more people learn
about the philosophical content of what scientists
are calling the 'fact of evolution', the less they
are going to like it." - Philip E. Johnson, Evolution
as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
24 Jan 2004 04:33:48 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:10:44 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
<noway@jose.com> wrote:
This has been dealt with many times. One is the paternal, the other the
maternal genealogy. One is legal, the other biological.
According to the myth, Jesus didn't have a father.
There's no contradiction.
Saying there is "no contradiction" doesn't make the glaring
contraditions go away.
Cannot you do any better than this?
Cannot you think any better than this?
--
"To the bat tank!" --- Tank Girl
Asking a Creationist for scientific evidence is like asking a hippo to ride
a unicycle.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick James" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
24 Jan 2004 11:01:46 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 9:10:44 -0500, Uncle Davey wrote
(in message <butuav$eje$0@pita.alt.net>):
"Frank Reichenbacher" <vesuvius@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:qqmdnRqNP4_fso3dRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net...
"Aaron Johnson" <akjmicro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c2c4ad7.0401221128.3b069813@posting.google.com...
Who was Joseph's father?
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus."
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son
of Heli."
Which version of the Bible? This may be an important issue. Is the passage
the same across various versions?
Frank
This has been dealt with many times. One is the paternal, the other the
maternal genealogy. One is legal, the other biological. There's no
contradiction. Cannot you do any better than this?
False. Please show where, in the Bible, either one of the two refers to Mary
in any way whatsoever.
Furthermore, according to those self-same Gospels, it is _certain_ that
Joseph is _not_ related to Jesus in any way, shape or form, so even if you
prove that one of the two refer to Mary, you still have a problem: the other
one, the one which refers to Joseph, is either an error or a lie as Joseph
ain't Jesus's daddy. Whichever way you cut it at least one of those
genelogies is in error... which means that right there is at least one
Biblical error.
Unless, of course, you say that Christ ain't the Son of God. If you do, you
have some explaining to do, as that statement directly contradicts the Bible.
--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
22 Jan 2004 05:02:11 PM |
|
|
"Frank Reichenbacher" <vesuvius@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:qqmdnRqNP4_fso3dRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net...
"Aaron Johnson" <akjmicro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c2c4ad7.0401221128.3b069813@posting.google.com...
Who was Joseph's father?
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus."
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son
of Heli."
Which version of the Bible? This may be an important issue. Is the passage
the same across various versions?
It looks that way:
http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+1:16;LUKE+3:23-24;&language=english&version=NKJV&showfn=on&showxref=on
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Legion" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
23 Jan 2004 01:42:35 PM |
|
|
Andrew Arensburger wrote:
In talk.origins Rev. Desertphile <desertphile@cchr.ws> wrote:
The fact that there are two imaginary and fully mutually-exclusive
contradictory "geneologies of Jesus" is rather well-known. What's
very, very funny is that one of them was written by someone who
disliked what would eventually become the Christian cult: that
geneology has Jesus being the descendant of whores, adulterers,
theives, and murderers.
Who? Do you have chapter and verse, or other documentation for
this claim?
I don't know about his other claims but the contradictory lineages can
be found in Matthew 1:2-16 and Luke 3:23-38
Even funnier, one of his fake ancestors was
cursed with barrenness and didn't have any children! ROTFL!
Which one? Again, chapter and verse, please.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "WiseGuy" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
22 Jan 2004 04:06:13 PM |
|
|
Back in the day { qqmdnRqNP4_fso3dRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net},
Frank Reichenbacher <vesuvius@speakeasy.net> opined:
"Aaron Johnson" <akjmicro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c2c4ad7.0401221128.3b069813@posting.google.com...
Who was Joseph's father?
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband
of Mary, of whom was born Jesus."
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about
thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the
son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli."
Which version of the Bible? This may be an important
issue. Is the passage the same across various versions?
Frank
versions? What versions? Go back to the best Greek text. The names are
different. So what?
.
|
|
|
| User: "_AnonCoward" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
23 Jan 2004 08:44:38 AM |
|
|
"WiseGuy" <NOTTHEgodfatha@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:buphe3$kb010$1@ID-180421.news.uni-berlin.de...
:
: Back in the day { qqmdnRqNP4_fso3dRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net},
: Frank Reichenbacher <vesuvius@speakeasy.net> opined:
:
: > "Aaron Johnson" <akjmicro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > news:7c2c4ad7.0401221128.3b069813@posting.google.com...
: >> Who was Joseph's father?
: >>
: >> * Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband
: >> of Mary, of whom was born Jesus."
: >> vs.
: >> * Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about
: >> thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the
: >> son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli."
: >>
: >
: >
: > Which version of the Bible? This may be an important
: > issue. Is the passage the same across various versions?
: >
: > Frank
:
: versions? What versions? Go back to the best Greek text. The names
: are different. So what?
Ralf:
Because the contradictory genealogies show that the bible is not
inerrant. That's not necessarily a problem unless one requires the text
to be error free as a cornerstone of your theological world view. For
most young earth creationists (Christian fundamentalists), their
doctrine of salvation is fully depending on the doctrine of biblical
inerrancy, (see http://tinyurl.com/wsgs for an earlier news post on this
subject).
That said, I should note that it is my impression that the majority of
Christians aren't impacted by this. They understand that the Bible is a
book *about* God and don't confuse it *with* God.
Ralf
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
* ^~^ ^~^ *
* _ {| |} {| |} _ *
* /_``>*< >*<''_\ *
* (\--_)++) (++(_--/) *
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nature is the canvas of creation and evolution but one of
the brushes. Religion points to the mind of God; Science
reveals its unfolding. The subjective apprehends knowledge
while the objective facilitates understanding.
In all things, yin and yang - ever flowing, one into the
other; always overtaking, always overtaken.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RHertz" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
22 Jan 2004 09:26:00 PM |
|
|
"WiseGuy" <NOTTHEgodfatha@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:buphe3$kb010$1@ID-180421.news.uni-berlin.de...
Back in the day { qqmdnRqNP4_fso3dRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net},
Frank Reichenbacher <vesuvius@speakeasy.net> opined:
"Aaron Johnson" <akjmicro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c2c4ad7.0401221128.3b069813@posting.google.com...
Who was Joseph's father?
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband
of Mary, of whom was born Jesus."
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about
thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the
son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli."
Which version of the Bible? This may be an important
issue. Is the passage the same across various versions?
Frank
versions? What versions? Go back to the best Greek text. The names are
different. So what?
The "synoptic" gospels, Matt, Mark, & Luke all purportedly have the same
source, code named "Q" by most scholars. Much of the text is essentially
identical in all three. None of the authors (except perhaps the author of
John) actually met Jesus. The actual "Q" text is now long gone, thus it
really impossible to go back to it for a reference.
The gospels were written at different times, for different reasons. Mark,
the shortest and probably oldest, was written for a Greek audience. It was
in Greece that Christianity first became a popular religion. Luke may have
been written for a Roman audience, or at least a fairly broad audience. The
author of Luke also likely wrote Acts of Apostles in order to glorfiy the
early Christians. It was a package deal with Luke.
Matt was written for a Hebrew audience. After the sacking of the Temple,
the Hebrew people were divided. One group, united under a previously
relatively unimportant group of otherwise minor church officials, the
Pharisees, were trying to reorganize traditional Judaism. The early
Christians were challenging this group, and in order to legitimatize their
Messiah, had to show that he was descended from David. (Luke does this also
for the same reason. There is no geneolgy in Mark or John.) Uniquely, Matt
also takes plently of potshots at the Pharisees in order to undermine their
authority.
It is possible to read a great deal of then-contemporary politics into the
Gospels. But, like the rest of the Bible, they are frittered with errors
and contradictions, so what it's hard to see is the authorship of an actual
diety. One would think that an allegedly infallible god would at least get
his story straight, or at least catalog a geneolgy correctly.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
22 Jan 2004 03:08:25 PM |
|
|
Frank Reichenbacher wrote:
"Aaron Johnson" <akjmicro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c2c4ad7.0401221128.3b069813@posting.google.com...
Who was Joseph's father?
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus."
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son
of Heli."
Which version of the Bible? This may be an important issue. Is the passage
the same across various versions?
Frank
Frank,
It's the same in the New English Bible, the Good News Bible and
the King James Bible.
Tom McDonald
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
22 Jan 2004 07:22:36 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:16:27 +0000 (UTC), "Frank Reichenbacher"
<vesuvius@speakeasy.net> wrote:
"Aaron Johnson" <akjmicro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c2c4ad7.0401221128.3b069813@posting.google.com...
Who was Joseph's father?
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus."
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son
of Heli."
The fact that there are two imaginary and fully mutually-exclusive
contradictory "geneologies of Jesus" is rather well-known. What's
very, very funny is that one of them was written by someone who
disliked what would eventually become the Christian cult: that
geneology has Jesus being the descendant of whores, adulterers,
theives, and murderers. Even funnier, one of his fake ancestors was
cursed with barrenness and didn't have any children! ROTFL!
Which version of the Bible? This may be an important issue. Is the passage
the same across various versions?
"Young's Litteral Version" (WHICH ISN'T!) used deception and false
"translations" and tried to hide the contradiction:
"and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was
begotten Jesus, who is named Christ."
"And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age,
being, as was supposed, son of Joseph"
Frank
--
"To the bat tank!" --- Tank Girl
Asking a Creationist for scientific evidence is like asking a hippo to ride
a unicycle.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Arensburger" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
23 Jan 2004 12:26:13 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Rev. Desertphile <desertphile@cchr.ws> wrote:
The fact that there are two imaginary and fully mutually-exclusive
contradictory "geneologies of Jesus" is rather well-known. What's
very, very funny is that one of them was written by someone who
disliked what would eventually become the Christian cult: that
geneology has Jesus being the descendant of whores, adulterers,
theives, and murderers.
Who? Do you have chapter and verse, or other documentation for
this claim?
Even funnier, one of his fake ancestors was
cursed with barrenness and didn't have any children! ROTFL!
Which one? Again, chapter and verse, please.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
"Jim Bakker spells his name with 2 k's because 3 would be too obvious."
-- Bill Maher
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
22 Jan 2004 02:05:32 PM |
|
|
"Aaron Johnson" <akjmicro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c2c4ad7.0401221128.3b069813@posting.google.com...
Who was Joseph's father?
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus."
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son
of Heli."
Never noticed that before. Both chapters trace back to David, but through
different lines of course, having started off with different grandfathers.
Luke traces the line all the way back to Adam, for some reason. The prophecy
only required that the Messiah be traceable back to David. In Luke, it's 43
generations back to David. Two to the 43rd power is about 9 trillion. What
does that mean, exactly? Seems like it would mean that it would be almost
impossible for anyone in Israel at that time not to be related to David.
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
22 Jan 2004 04:21:17 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:05:32 +0000 (UTC), "Dale"
<dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote:
"Aaron Johnson" <akjmicro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c2c4ad7.0401221128.3b069813@posting.google.com...
Who was Joseph's father?
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus."
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son
of Heli."
Never noticed that before. Both chapters trace back to David, but through
different lines of course, having started off with different grandfathers.
Luke traces the line all the way back to Adam, for some reason. The prophecy
only required that the Messiah be traceable back to David.
One might point out that the Bible also makes it clear that Joseph was
not the biological father of Jesus, rendering both lineages rather
pointless to begin with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
22 Jan 2004 04:43:27 PM |
|
|
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:05:32 +0000 (UTC), "Dale"
<dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote:
"Aaron Johnson" <akjmicro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c2c4ad7.0401221128.3b069813@posting.google.com...
Who was Joseph's father?
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus."
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son
of Heli."
Never noticed that before. Both chapters trace back to David, but through
different lines of course, having started off with different grandfathers.
Luke traces the line all the way back to Adam, for some reason. The prophecy
only required that the Messiah be traceable back to David.
One might point out that the Bible also makes it clear that Joseph was
not the biological father of Jesus, rendering both lineages rather
pointless to begin with.
Or more to the point, *the very same Gospels* make it clear...
--
John Wilkins
wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Coddington" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
23 Jan 2004 08:55:55 PM |
|
|
"John Wilkins" <john.wilkins@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1g80djg.ilukbb11y85N%john.wilkins@bigpond.com...
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:05:32 +0000 (UTC), "Dale"
<dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote:
"Aaron Johnson" <akjmicro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c2c4ad7.0401221128.3b069813@posting.google.com...
Who was Joseph's father?
Matt 1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother
Mary
ws pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was
found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.
Is the question somehow difficult? There is no contradiction at all here.
* Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of
whom
was born Jesus."
vs.
* Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the
son
of Heli."
Never noticed that before. Both chapters trace back to David, but
through
different lines of course, having started off with different
grandfathers.
Luke traces the line all the way back to Adam, for some reason. The
prophecy
only required that the Messiah be traceable back to David.
One might point out that the Bible also makes it clear that Joseph was
not the biological father of Jesus, rendering both lineages rather
pointless to begin with.
Or more to the point, *the very same Gospels* make it clear...
--
John Wilkins
wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
23 Jan 2004 09:16:55 PM |
|
|
"Tim Coddington" <jacod@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fNGdnYXlNOvrQ4zdRVn-ug@comcast.com...
"John Wilkins" <john.wilkins@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1g80djg.ilukbb11y85N%john.wilkins@bigpond.com...
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:05:32 +0000 (UTC), "Dale"
<dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote:
"Aaron Johnson" <akjmicro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c2c4ad7.0401221128.3b069813@posting.google.com...
Who was Joseph's father?
Matt 1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother
Mary
ws pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was
found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.
Is the question somehow difficult? There is no contradiction at all here.
Who was *Joseph's* father?
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
24 Jan 2004 04:32:14 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 02:55:55 +0000 (UTC), "Tim Coddington"
<jacod@comcast.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <john.wilkins@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1g80djg.ilukbb11y85N%john.wilkins@bigpond.com...
Who was Joseph's father?
Matt 1:18
This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother
Mary ws pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came
together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.
Is the question somehow difficult? There is no contradiction at
all here.
ROTFL!
The question was: according to the Christians Testament, WHO WAS
JOSEPH'S FATHER?
--
"To the bat tank!" --- Tank Girl
Asking a Creationist for scientific evidence is like asking a hippo to ride
a unicycle.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Goodrich" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
24 Jan 2004 05:24:21 PM |
|
|
(Rev. Desertphile) wrote in news:buurnm$ma133$2@ID-
197010.news.uni-berlin.de:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 02:55:55 +0000 (UTC), "Tim Coddington"
<jacod@comcast.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <john.wilkins@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1g80djg.ilukbb11y85N%john.wilkins@bigpond.com...
Who was Joseph's father?
Matt 1:18
This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother
Mary ws pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came
together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.
Is the question somehow difficult? There is no contradiction at
all here.
ROTFL!
The question was: according to the Christians Testament, WHO WAS
JOSEPH'S FATHER?
And what is the more or less standard answer that the Christian Apologetic
community gives on this issue?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Severian" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
25 Jan 2004 12:19:09 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:24:21 +0000 (UTC), Mike Goodrich
<goodrich_ms@yahoo.com> wrote:
desertphile@cchr.ws (Rev. Desertphile) wrote in news:buurnm$ma133$2@ID-
197010.news.uni-berlin.de:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 02:55:55 +0000 (UTC), "Tim Coddington"
<jacod@comcast.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <john.wilkins@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1g80djg.ilukbb11y85N%john.wilkins@bigpond.com...
Who was Joseph's father?
Matt 1:18
This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother
Mary ws pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came
together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.
Is the question somehow difficult? There is no contradiction at
all here.
ROTFL!
The question was: according to the Christians Testament, WHO WAS
JOSEPH'S FATHER?
And what is the more or less standard answer that the Christian Apologetic
community gives on this issue?
Ummmm. Why do I care? Why should _anyone_ care? Your sadness obtains.
- Sev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Coddington" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
25 Jan 2004 07:49:36 PM |
|
|
Sorry - Brain fart! I suppose the real answer lies in the fact that
Grandfather used to be grand father, hence father with a modifier.
Nothing strange about that, though. We know the bible uses that
type of speech lots of times, calling one a father for many sub-
generations.
"Severian" <severian@chlamydia-is-not-a-flower.com> wrote in message
news:omn610ps54bb4cjb98db1g6f8pqrgg1pub@4ax.com...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:24:21 +0000 (UTC), Mike Goodrich
<goodrich_ms@yahoo.com> wrote:
desertphile@cchr.ws (Rev. Desertphile) wrote in news:buurnm$ma133$2@ID-
197010.news.uni-berlin.de:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 02:55:55 +0000 (UTC), "Tim Coddington"
<jacod@comcast.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <john.wilkins@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1g80djg.ilukbb11y85N%john.wilkins@bigpond.com...
Who was Joseph's father?
Matt 1:18
This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother
Mary ws pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came
together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.
Is the question somehow difficult? There is no contradiction at
all here.
ROTFL!
The question was: according to the Christians Testament, WHO WAS
JOSEPH'S FATHER?
And what is the more or less standard answer that the Christian
Apologetic
community gives on this issue?
Ummmm. Why do I care? Why should _anyone_ care? Your sadness obtains.
- Sev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Severian" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
25 Jan 2004 10:47:32 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 01:49:36 +0000 (UTC), "Tim Coddington"
<jacod@comcast.net> wrote:
<ugly top-posting rectified>
"Severian" <severian@chlamydia-is-not-a-flower.com> wrote in message
news:omn610ps54bb4cjb98db1g6f8pqrgg1pub@4ax.com...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:24:21 +0000 (UTC), Mike Goodrich
<goodrich_ms@yahoo.com> wrote:
desertphile@cchr.ws (Rev. Desertphile) wrote in news:buurnm$ma133$2@ID-
197010.news.uni-berlin.de:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 02:55:55 +0000 (UTC), "Tim Coddington"
<jacod@comcast.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <john.wilkins@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1g80djg.ilukbb11y85N%john.wilkins@bigpond.com...
Who was Joseph's father?
Matt 1:18
This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother
Mary ws pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came
together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.
Is the question somehow difficult? There is no contradiction at
all here.
ROTFL!
The question was: according to the Christians Testament, WHO WAS
JOSEPH'S FATHER?
And what is the more or less standard answer that the Christian
Apologetic
community gives on this issue?
Ummmm. Why do I care? Why should _anyone_ care? Your sadness obtains.
Sorry - Brain fart! I suppose the real answer lies in the fact that
Grandfather used to be grand father, hence father with a modifier.
Nothing strange about that, though. We know the bible uses that
type of speech lots of times, calling one a father for many sub-
generations.
Please feel free to answer any other questions that I did not ask.
Thanks in advance!
- Sev
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Daily Bible Contradiction |
24 Jan 2004 11:42:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:24:21 +0000 (UTC), Mike Goodrich
<goodrich_ms@yahoo.com> wrote:
desertphile@cchr.ws (Rev. Desertphile) wrote in news:buurnm$ma133$2@ID-
197010.news.uni-berlin.de:
The question was: according to the Christians Testament, WHO WAS
JOSEPH'S FATHER?
And what is the more or less standard answer that the Christian
Apologetic community gives on this issue?
"It was Satan?"
How the ***** would I know what crazy people believe? The Bible reports
two radically different people were the father of Joseph, and yet many
Fundamentalist Christians believe that the Bible does not contain any
errors: an obviously false belief. Since the myth makers couldn't even
get that part right, no one need worry about anything else the Bible
claims.
--
"To the bat tank!" --- Tank Girl
Asking a Creationist for scientific evidence is like asking a hippo to ride
a unicycle.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
