Contradictions in the N.T.

[liamconnor]

I apologize, for I am sure this is a hackneyed topic.


Now, though discrepancies and even contradictions in the Bible do not automatically threaten my beliefs (there are some which, if they could be shown, would make me abandon Christianity) still, the mention of "contradictions in Scripture" is made so often, I have forgotten which ones we have in mind.

Let's narrow this down to the N.T. since that is an explicitly Christian compilation.

What are they. Are there ways of reconciling them?

[JehovahsWitness]

Do you have anything to support your claim that this is Mary's line despite the fact that it explicitly states that Joseph was the son of Heli?

Although Luke doesn't specifically explain his entry of "Heli" he does introduce the genelogy as being the ancestry of Jesus as does Matthew so "Heli" it is reasonable to conclude was being identified as the grandfather of Jesus' in some capacity.

Interestingly , only Matthew employs the word "gennao" (begat) translated by most modern bibles as "became father to...* to"; the specific word "son" (greek: huios) is actually only mentioned by LUKE in relation to Jesus (adopted) "son" of Joseph, all the other names are merely presented as a genealogocial listing, reading literally "... Joseph, which was [...] of Heli" which was [...] of Matthat" ect. In short Luke does NOT specifically state that Joseph was "son of Heli" but only that he was "of Heli" and we the reader is left to deduce as we wish. Thus the understanding that Heli was in fact Joseph's "Father in law" is both in line with Hebrew tradition, a logical comparison of the various genealogical listings and a strict reading of the actual text.

* The word "father" while implied by Matthew in his use of "gennao" (begat), is again not specifically mention in the greek text.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 61 by JehovahsWitness]

all the other names are merely presented as a genealogocial listing, reading literally "... Joseph, which was [...] of Heli" which was [...] of Matthat" ect.

So when I read the Luke genealogy, I'm reading a list of fathers-in-laws?
I also have to question your translation of the Greek. I'm not a Greek speaker myself, but some English translations have "Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,..."
ESV, KJ21, ASV, BRG, CEB, CJB, and so on.
Amplified Bible has " the son of Joseph, the son [by marriage] of Eli,", (but the Amplified Bible, Classic Edition just has Joseph son of Eli).

It seems here from my perspective as an outsider to both the Christian belief and to translating Greek, that there is no agreement on the translation of those verses. Are the people who published the ESV and other versions just wrong? If they are, why should I believe you, and not them?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 61 by JehovahsWitness]

all the other names are merely presented as a genealogocial listing, reading literally "... Joseph, which was [...] of Heli" which was [...] of Matthat" ect.

So when I read the Luke genealogy, I'm reading a list of fathers-in-laws?

Readers and translators are free to do as they wish. I simply presented FACTS as to the rendition in the original language and presented what I see as reasonable conclusions. The reader is free to conclude as he or she wishes but the facts of what is actually written in the Greek texts available are not debatable. Justin states that Luke specifically stated that Joseph was "son of" heli and that is simply not true.

JW

ps: Thank you for your reference to the Amplified Bible, duly noted.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 63 by JehovahsWitness]

Justin states that Luke specifically stated that Joseph was "son of" heli and that is simply not true.

And as I pointed out in my previous comment, I've got a list of translations of the Bible that do have Joseph being the son of Heli, and not making any allusion to or implying that Heli was a father in law. So at this point, I've got you saying "This translates to that" and the people who published those versions of the Bible saying "No, it translates to this other thing".
Which of you has the actual accurate translation of the word in question? I honestly do not know.

[Justin108]

Do you have anything to support your claim that this is Mary's line despite the fact that it explicitly states that Joseph was the son of Heli?

Although Luke doesn't specifically explain his entry of "Heli" he does introduce the genelogy as being the ancestry of Jesus as does Matthew so "Heli" it is reasonable to conclude was being identified as the grandfather of Jesus' in some capacity. Interestingly however, only Matthew employs the word "gennao" (begat) translated by most modern bibles as "became father to...* to"; the specific word "son" (greek: huios) is actually only mentioned by LUKE in relation to Jesus (adopted) "son" of Joseph, all the other names are merely presented as a genealogocial listing, reading literally "... Joseph, which was [...] of Heli" which was [...] of Matthat" ect. In short Luke does NOT specifically state that Joseph was "son of Heli" but only that he was "of Heli" and we the reader is left to deduce as we wish. Thus the understanding that Heli was in fact Joseph's "Father in law" is both in line with Hebrew tradition, a logical comparison of the various genealogical listings and a strict reading of the actual text.

* The word "father" while implied by Matthew in his use of "gennao" (begat), is again not specifically mention in his original text.

Can you link me to your sources?

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 61 by JehovahsWitness]

all the other names are merely presented as a genealogocial listing, reading literally "... Joseph, which was [...] of Heli" which was [...] of Matthat" ect.

So when I read the Luke genealogy, I'm reading a list of fathers-in-laws?

Readers and translators are free to do as they wish. I simply presented FACTS as to the rendition in the original language and presented what I see as reasonable conclusions.

In the absence of Matthew, looking only at Luke, would you have come to the same conclusion that the text suggests Heli being his father-in-law rather than his father?

[JehovahsWitness]

Can you link me to your sources?

I often use Strongs but any word for word interlinear English-Greek concordance will do.

Luke
http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebibl ... 42C003.htm

Matthew
http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/B40C001.htm

The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (KIT), pub wbts 1969
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/int/E/1985/42/3#v=1

JW

[polonius]

http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html

"According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (2-Samuel 7:14; 1-Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6). The third chapter of Luke is irrelevant to this discussion because it describes lineage of David's son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)"

Observation: If Joseph, a descendant of both David and Solomon, was not the biological father of Jesus, Jesus did not fulfill these Messianic prophecies.

[polonius]

http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html

In response, it is claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy via adoption.

There are two problems with this claim:
a) There is no biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption.

b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn't have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30)

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 67 by JehovahsWitness]
If I understand your interpretation correctly, you believe that every instance of the phrase "of (name)" means "biological son of (name)" in every instance of Luke 3 except "of Heli" which suddenly means "son in law of Heli"?