God's Plan?

[POI]

For Debate: Why didn't God directly author the Bible himself? Why instead give his instruction(s) to fallible and sinful humans to write down his wishes to paper, which then makes it quite easy for skeptics to conclude that such writings were not from any higher power at all?

[POI]

Sure, you just freely ignore what's written and pretend it means something else. Heli means Jacob. Sound familiar?

You think that a person can't have two names? Why?

Of course a person can be known by more than one name. Usually if you don't use a person's actual first name, you use a nickname or a middle name. Do you think people writing important genealogies would use nicknames or middle names and create potential confusion?

If you follow your logic, then every mention of Jesus in the NT could actually be someone else. These may actually be stories about 15 different people that had different first names, but either had nicknames or middle names of 'Jesus' (whatever the original language and pronunciation was).

You are admitting that names have no importance and we are free to substitute as we like (i.e. interpret freely) in order to justify some belief.

I doubt many readers will buy your argument, but I guess if that's all you have I'm happy to watch you use it.

Exactly. Why do you add your own spin on top of what is actually written?

I can't help but to again bring up the be-fitting analogy... It's like throwing a dart at the wall, and afterwards, drawing a bull's-eye around that dart

I only show that your interpretation can be wrong.

Except you are the one creating an interpretation that requires adding extra context and words that are not present. You aren't showing I'm wrong (though I may very well be), you are arguing that we shouldn't read what's written, but add a bunch of other stuff to make it line up to some predetermined outcome. You go in with a story in mind and force the text to tell that story whether it does or not. It's quite obvious what you are doing for anyone paying attention.

[POI]

Sure, you just freely ignore what's written and pretend it means something else. Heli means Jacob. Sound familiar?

You think that a person can't have two names? Why?

Of course a person can be known by more than one name. Usually if you don't use a person's actual first name, you use a nickname or a middle name. Do you think people writing important genealogies would use nicknames or middle names and create potential confusion?

If you follow your logic, then every mention of Jesus in the NT could actually be someone else. These may actually be stories about 15 different people that had different first names, but either had nicknames or middle names of 'Jesus' (whatever the original language and pronunciation was).

You are admitting that names have no importance and we are free to substitute as we like (i.e. interpret freely) in order to justify some belief.

I doubt many readers will buy your argument, but I guess if that's all you have I'm happy to watch you use it.

Exactly. Why do you add your own spin on top of what is actually written?

I can't help but to again bring up the be-fitting analogy... It's like throwing a dart at the wall, and afterwards, drawing a bull's-eye around that dart

I only show that your interpretation can be wrong.

Except you are the one creating an interpretation that requires adding extra context and words that are not present. You aren't showing I'm wrong (though I may very well be), you are arguing that we shouldn't read what's written, but add a bunch of other stuff to make it line up to some predetermined outcome. You go in with a story in mind and force the text to tell that story whether it does or not. It's quite obvious what you are doing for anyone paying attention.

Yes, it's quite obvious. I can't help but to again bring up the be-fitting analogy... It's like throwing a dart at the wall, and afterwards, drawing a bull's-eye around that dart

[TRANSPONDER]

Absolutely. It is blindingly obvious what is going on here. Apart from extant evidence of different and contradictory stories (nativities) the probability must be that the different names are different persons. There is no real point of contact? Both names are never given? The gospels usually explain why the Boanerges were also sons of Zebedee or why Peter was also called Cephus.

Even apologists can (at times ) recognise they are different because of course they go through different lines of Royalty - don't these Bible apologists ever read, let alone understand, their own Bible? So they pretend they are different genealogies, which plainly they are not - both end up with Joseph as father of Jesus (which Christian doctrine says he wasn't). And then when that fails, they think up some excuse why they are the same.

It is as clear as 1 Cor not describing the Gospel resurrections - getting at the facts doesn't matter; propping up the personal opinions of the apologist is all that matters, and if the evidence, reality and the Bible itself disagrees, they are all wrong. Even the Bible.

I still think it is a standout that one apologist posted the whole resurrection scenario and edited out all the contradictions, so he knew what they were, and then denied he'd done it when it was there in the post. I can only thank nongod that my brain is not a frazzled as that.

[1213]

...Do you think people writing important genealogies would use nicknames or middle names and create potential confusion?

I think it is possible that people used multiple names. For example Simon was called also Peter (Matt. 4:18). That could cause confusion. But, I think it is problem only if one makes it a problem.

You are admitting that names have no importance

I think names have importance.

...you are arguing that we shouldn't read what's written,...

I think people should read what is written. But, I think they also should not make too hasty conclusions from it. It would be good to understand that Bible doesn't tell everything, it is just a small part of what people witnessed.