Geneologies?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by nate, Dec 6, 2005.

  1. nate

    nate
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    An athiest I have been debating with claims the Bible contradicts itself in Matthew and Luke in the accounts of Christ geneology. I have heard claims the Septuagint fixes this. Is it true?
     
  2. Snitzelhoff

    Snitzelhoff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Messages:
    301
    Likes Received:
    0
    The general explanation has nothing to do with the Septuagint (as the Septuagint was just the Old Testament). It's usually explained that Luke traced the geneaology through Mary, but in the male-dominated society, he used Joseph's name. At least, that's the explanation I've always heard.
     
  3. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,075
    Likes Received:
    102
  4. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    If there are contradictions in the Bible, throw it away; it's useless. (There aren't any, BTW.)

    The two lists actually complement each other quite well. The two writers wrote from different angles.
     
  5. Brother Ian

    Brother Ian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since RSR cited John MacArthur, here is a good summary:

    "In this genealogy, we have a descending record starting from Abraham and descending down through David and Joseph to Jesus. In the third chapter of Luke, Jesus' genealogy is also recorded, but that genealogy is the reverse: It ascends, starting with Jesus and going back through Mary all the way to Adam. Whereas Matthew's genealogy is coming down through Joseph, Luke's traces Jesus back through Mary. One begins with Jesus, the other ends with Jesus."

    I think that sums it up well. As you can see, there is no contradiction as the lists compliment and perhaps, complete one another.
     
  6. nate

    nate
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok thanks for the information.I never thought it did but just wanted an explanation.
     
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I respectfull disagree. This is
    the thinking of agnostics and athiests.

    Here is what is better, a Christ-like thinking:

    If there are contradictions in the Bible,
    then we humans put them there. We need to work
    together in Christian love to figure them
    out - ultimately: there are no contradictions
    in the Bibles.
     
  8. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    Sure there are. There are several. But they're contradictions on minor points of fact. There are no contraditions on points of truth. As Ed said, if we simply toss our bibles because of said contraditions, then we're concurring with the atheists. But if we deny the obvious, we're not being truthful and forthright about scripture. Again, Ed is right. In matters of truth, there are ultimately no contradictions
    in the Bible, and scripture continues to be 100% truth.
     
  9. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you will read what I wrote, this is precisely the point that I made. My exact parenthetical quote was, "(There aren't any, BTW.)"

    If we mistranslated something, that does not create a contradition, that creates a mistranslation, not a contradiction.

    If there were truly any contradictions in the Bible, then none of it could be trusted. But, since there aren't any contradictions, it can be trusted.
     
  10. Humblesmith

    Humblesmith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    698
    Likes Received:
    0
    The genealogy is correct. McArthur is correct. The clue is in Luke 3:23, when Luke uses the word "supposedly" which gives us the clue that Mary was a virgin, not the biological son of Joseph. Luke was too careful of a historian to goof on such a simple point.

    Regarding innerancy, the problem with denying innerancy is that the typical "minor points of fact" that are alleged errors often turn out to be major points of doctrine, such as Jesus' frequent quotation of facts in the OT.

    1. God cannot err in His words.
    2. The bible is the word of God.
    3. The bible cannot err.

    Which are you going to deny? 1 or 2?

    Plenty of excellent sources on innerancy and its importance.
     
  11. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Humblesmith: //Regarding innerancy, the problem with denying innerancy is that the typical "minor points of fact" that are alleged errors often turn out to be major points of doctrine, such as Jesus' frequent quotation of facts in the OT. //

    For a poll on what BB (Baptist Board) readers think
    'inerancy' means check out:

    http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/4/2497.html?
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The bible doesn't claim to be inerrant. The bible claims to be divinely inspired and doctrinally infallible (which is why I refer to scriptural inerrancy as being inerrant in truth). So to say that there are minor errors of fact is not an affront to scripture, or violation thereof.

    The only way we can deny that there are minor errors of fact is to pretend they don't exist. That would be scripturally wrong to dismiss scripture. But, not surprisingly, many who dismiss such scripture are the same ones to add the "100% factually correct" doctrine to scripture.
     
  13. ituttut

    ituttut
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,674
    Likes Received:
    0
    This subject came up a couple of years ago on another Religious Board I frequent. Perhaps part of my answer at time will help explain, removing what some believe is contradiction. The Bible will always answer itself. But we must bring it together for understanding.

    Some of this is partial quotes to various questions posed to me.

    “Joseph’s genealogy is found in Matthew, Chapter 1. Mary’s is found beginning in Luke 3:23. God is the Father of Jesus, and Joseph is His father surrogate.”

    “Every one before Verse 16 in chapter 1 of Matthew begat someone. But we see in 16 Joseph does not begat Jesus. Joseph is shown to only be the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. The baby Jesus had only one human parent, that being Mary, so no other explanation is acceptable, as that is just more ammo for those that teach Joseph had a right to be the father of Jesus after all because Joseph came through the line from Solomon. But an ancestor of Joseph’s had a curse upon him that made it impossible for an offspring of Solomon to sit on the throne of David as King. Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30.

    ”There is no scripture where the curse was lifted pertaining the throne. He was childless while sitting on the throne. Pastor Xxxx, going by your explanation in post 21 “The Jews have an oral tradition that Shealtiel, his son, was born in the exile, ……………”, helps substantiate the false point of view. I can see why this is the way the ancient “rabbis” would hold the false view. This would greatly help in trying to prove the false assumption that Joseph was the father of Jesus, and that Mary was not a virgin after all. We must reject that which does not support the virgin birth.

    ”It is interesting to note that Matthew 1:1 reads ‘The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.’ It doesn’t read from Jesus Christ, the son of Solomon, the son of Abraham. So Matthew is pointing out Messiah will sit on the Throne of David and not through the physical seed of Solomon. Why? Because Matthew starts at faithful Abraham (beginning of God's nation, the Hebrew"s). The Book of Matthew is totally immersed in the family of God. The physical seed of Jesus actually starts with Adam, through the Gentile's, to Abraham, through David, to Mary via a different route. The break in Matthew’s breakdown is telling, in that it stops at David (Notice David is called King, Solomon is not) for a reason. It will be David’s kingdom and not Solomon’s kingdom forever.

    ”The train stops so another great King (Solomon) can have his own train to met up again to witness the birth of the Messiah, but have no part in the actual birth. I kings 9:5-7 tells us that God will establish Solomon’s throne of the kingdom if Solomon and his offspring follow God’s commandments and statutes, and not go and serve other gods, and worship them. Jeremiah 22:30, and 36:30 eliminated the throne of Solomon’s kingdom upon Israel forever.

    ”What stands out to me is that there is no break in Luke’s genealogy from Adam to Mary. This shows a direct link from the beginning of sin. From Mary, Jesus is made human, and comes out of sin. Jesus is the second Adam, just like in the Garden of Eden. God is His Father, (Jesus is sinless), but is born into the world through sinful flesh and into sin. He has the body, but not the nature of man. Jesus is God’s only begotten Son. How humiliating, and degrading. But Oh what Love, Mercy, Grace and Long suffering.” Christian faith,
    ituttut

    [ December 08, 2005, 03:02 AM: Message edited by: ituttut ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...