explainer wrote:

SJAB1958 wrote:

The Bible is claimed by some to be the inerrant Word of God; therefore
it cannot contain any errors or mistakes and contains only the truth.
But there are now some that claim there are errors in translations of
the original, but that their version is inerrant. And there are others
that now hint at "partial inerrancy" whatever that is supposed to be,
perhaps it is like selective hearing.

But do please examine this information for yourselves and if you can
prove my version of the Bible is in error, then do so...

I'll play, but I won't try to prove anything in the Bible is true.
That's a folly. Although I do not believe the Bible to be inerrant,
those who do usually point to any inconsistencies as translation
errors.

But dont resort
to abusive language, or hostility or accusations. I am not here to
start a fight or arguement or threaten anyone's faith or religion.

Drat!

So if anyone can come up with a proper explanation that invalidates
this obvious discrepancy,

I won't, but I will venture my opinion... for what it's worth.

I will be only too happy to listen to their
reasoning. Please remember though that reasoning doesnt involve being
nasty towards someone who seems to reject your point of view.

Luke 1:32 - Mary is told that her unborn child Jesus will be given the
throne of his father David. This information is imparted to her by an
angel of the lord.

"the throne of his father David" refers to his lineage which some say
came through Mary. There is an interesting discussion to be had on
this, but literalists aren't interested in discussing anything about
the subject.

Matthew 1:12-16 - the lineage here suggests that Jesus is of the line
of Jehoiachim. And Matthew actually states in these verses that Jesus
is of this line, through Joseph the husband of Mary (Mary being the
mother of Jesus).

Going back to Matthew 1:2 you will see that the lineage goes all the
back to Abram (Abraham).

Jeremiah 36:30 - Jehoiachim and his line are cursed by God and denied
the throne of David.

but that doesn't remove them from the lineage.

Matthew 1:18 - Mary was with child before Joseph knew her.

"knew" in this sense is usually taken as meaning before sex as in
carnal knowledge.

So is Jesus the Son of God, or merely the son of Joseph?

If he is the Son of God, how can he be of the House of David?

If he is the son of Joseph, how can he be placed on the throne of
David?

And if Joseph has adopted Jesus, the curse laid on the line of
Jehoiachim must also apply to Jesus, if not why not?

You have demonstrated quite nicely what happens when you try to take
something literally that was created as metaphor.

I hope you didn't hurt yourself. Since I answered your question the
best I could (without abusive language) will you answer miine?

Remember, the biology of the day was that the man carried the "seed"
and the woman was the fertile "soil". It wasn't until 1837 CE that
science knew the male sperm fertilized the female egg.

Question: Knowing what we know today, was the proclaimed virgin birth
of Jesus a divine fertilization of Mary's egg or the implantation of a
devine fertilized egg into Mary?

All the best, Gordon Hill

Thanks for the very informative response, and in reaction to your
question, may I answer it with another? Which came first the deity or
the egg?

More seriously though, thats a tough one to answer. A divine
fertilisation or a divine egg, to be honest it may take me some time to
produce a philosophical and rational response to that one.