What Bible Passage Most Worries Christians?

[Miles]

.

OR at least gives you pause about the truth of the Bible. This follows on the heels of Transponder's thread: "What Bible passage most worries atheists?"

As I see it the Bible is filled with contradictions: Such as the true father of Salah (Sala).

Genesis 10:24
24 And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.

Luke 3:35-36
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

And mistakes god made:

1 Samuel 15:35 (3 versions)
CEV
Even though Samuel felt sad about Saul, Samuel never saw him again. The Lord was sorry he had made Saul the king of Israel.
KJ21
And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul; and the Lord repented that He had made Saul king over Israel.
CEB
Samuel never saw Saul again before he died, but he grieved over Saul. However, the Lord regretted making Saul king over Israel.

Plus God's Incredible cruelty

1 Samuel 15:2-3
2 The Lord All-Powerful says: ‘When the Israelites came out of Egypt, the Amalekites tried to stop them from going to Canaan. I saw what the Amalekites did. 3 Now go fight against the Amalekites. You must completely destroy the Amalekites and everything that belongs to them. Don’t let anything live; you must kill all the men and women and all of their children and little babies. You must kill all of their cattle and sheep and all of their camels and donkeys."’

Along with his great plans that went kaput! God is fallible.

Genesis 6: 11-13,
11-12 When God looked at the earth, he saw that people had ruined it. Violence was everywhere, and it had ruined their life on earth.
13 So God said to Noah, “Everyone has filled the earth with anger and violence. So I will destroy all living things. I will remove them from the earth.

Genesis 7:21, 23
21Every living thing on earth died—every man and woman, every bird, and every kind of animal.
23 In this way God wiped the earth clean

Problems Begin Again
Genesis 9:20-25
20 Noah became a farmer and planted a vineyard. 21 One day Noah made some wine. He got drunk, went into his tent, and took off all his clothes. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw that his father was naked and told his brothers who were outside the tent. 23 Shem and Japheth took a robe, put it across their shoulders, and walked backward into the tent. Then they covered their father without looking at him.
24 Later, Noah woke up. (He was sleeping because of the wine.) When he learned what his youngest son Ham had done to him, 25 he said,

“May there be a curse on Canaan
May he be a slave to his brothers.”

I think you get the idea. What Bible Passage Most Worries Christians?

.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #5

Luke was inspired to interview eye witnesses and create an account based on that. He was not an expert in genealogies.

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account... (Luke1:3)

If his account wasn't accurate, then everything wasn't carefully investigated. If everything wasn't carefully investigated, he couldn't have been inspired to say that it was.

He investigated the events, not genealogical records.

He claimed to have "carefully investigated everything from the beginning" (ἀκριβῶς παρακολουθέω πᾶς ἄνωθεν).....

...."I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Without the genealogical records being accurate, Theophilus couldn't have certainty (if the author had messed up on the genealogies, he might have messed up elsewhere as well).

But he would because it doesn't matter about Jesus' genealogy. Joseph isn't even his father. Luke wasn't investigating Joseph's bloodline. That is not important to the story he was investigating. Jews just wanted him to be from David.

[JehovahsWitness]

He investigated the events, not genealogical records.

How do you know that ?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #21]

But he would because it doesn't matter about Jesus' genealogy. Joseph isn't even his father. Luke wasn't investigating Joseph's bloodline. That is not important to the story he was investigating. Jews just wanted him to be from David.

He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much. (Luke 16:10)

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #5

Luke was inspired to interview eye witnesses and create an account based on that. He was not an expert in genealogies.

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account... (Luke1:3)

If his account wasn't accurate, then everything wasn't carefully investigated. If everything wasn't carefully investigated, he couldn't have been inspired to say that it was.

He investigated the events, not genealogical records.

He claimed to have "carefully investigated everything from the beginning" (ἀκριβῶς παρακολουθέω πᾶς ἄνωθεν).....

...."I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Without the genealogical records being accurate, Theophilus couldn't have certainty (if the author had messed up on the genealogies, he might have messed up elsewhere as well).

But he would because it doesn't matter about Jesus' genealogy. Joseph isn't even his father. Luke wasn't investigating Joseph's bloodline. That is not important to the story he was investigating. Jews just wanted him to be from David.

That goes deeper. On the face of it you are right - if you suppose that the writers of even the original gospel story were Jews. But my particular take is that they could not have been. The story makes no sense to a Jew, only Greek-Roman Christians could have taken it seriously. And I have to argue that the fact that Mark doesn't have a Genealogy indicates that the two differing ones on Matthew and Luke are down to the same differences - they independently added material that contradicts and so one at least has to be wrong, just like the nativities and resurrection - appearances; not in Mark, different and contradictory.

On the other hand, the validation of Davidic (Messianic) credentials, which we can trace to the healing of blind Bartimaeus, shows that the validation of the son of David messianic title, just before he goes to Jerusalem, is original synoptic material and validates the Davidic title - because Jesus had power from God, not because of the bloodline. That on the evidence was something (like the Bethlehem birth) that only became important later on and so individual (and contradictory) validation had to be got from somewhere to give the proof.

I'll have a look at Mark and see just where he mentions David. Blind Bar - Timaeus, sure and the 'Who is David's son?' Which I reckon the evangelists didn't understand (they don't explain it but just leave the Sadducees unable to answer, which was all the point they considered important). But I reckon the idea is that the Son of David on earth (in the Flesh as Paul says) is the son of David, the messianic spirit that entered him at the baptism. Which was altered later on (by the Greek/Roman Christians) to the spirit of God, so 'who is David's son' because meaningless to the gospel writers.

That's my explanation, anyway.

......

Damn' it 'Vindicate me before mine enemies!'. 7 mentions in Mark. David and the Shewbread, which isn't about Messianic descent but using the (poor) example of king David Lawbreaking (though arguably he didn't (1) as a pretext for throwing out Sabbath worship.

The references to Jesus' Davidic credentials are the healing of Bar - Timaeus, 10.47 - 8 and the Messianic hail at the Hosannah procession to the temple 11.10, and then the argument about David's son 12 35 and 37.

Scientific validation - make a prediction and it pans out.

(1) though as usual, the 'Teachers of the Law' are never shown as arguing anything, but skulking off to plot Jesus' demise. I swear to you folks, that isn't reliable record but grubby Christian propaganda.