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?

[benchwarmer]

...Even otseng acknowledges that the Bible is not inerrant.

I have not seen any real error in the Bible.

Who was Jesus's grandfather?

Happy tap dancing

[POI]

...Even otseng acknowledges that the Bible is not inerrant.

I have not seen any real error in the Bible.

Then you are not looking.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. This is blatant denial - not seeing what one doesn't want to see.

Look friends, we know what is going on: the idea that if they deny everything, they win. It is however down to our jury to decide who has the best case, and the argument was always addressed to them not to the advocate to get them to admit where the evidence points. That, they will never do.

[The Nice Centurion]

...Even otseng acknowledges that the Bible is not inerrant.

I have not seen any real error in the Bible.

Who was Jesus's grandfather?

Happy tap dancing

Was it the god Uranus

[benchwarmer]

...Even otseng acknowledges that the Bible is not inerrant.

I have not seen any real error in the Bible.

Who was Jesus's grandfather?

Happy tap dancing

Was it the god Uranus?

Ironically, this is probably a decent answer. Technically, if we believe the stories, Jesus's real father was a god. So another god as a grandfather makes more sense.

A better question for 1213 would actually be "Who was Joseph's father?". That way we can side step the above wrinkle.

However, even if we ignore that wrinkle and swallow the handwaving that will surely ensue about Joseph's father, what use does trying to tie Jesus to any bloodline through Joseph? You guessed it, trying to fiddle the story to line up with prophesies about being a son of David.

The strange thing is that both writers in question use a genealogy through fathers instead of mothers (because women didn't matter as much apparently). If they had gone through Mary's line, it would make more sense to a point. However, that would break the son of A, son of B, .... son of David. Wouldn't want to mention daughters or mothers and break things

Since Jesus was 'born of a virgin', they should be caring about the genealogy back from Mary. That's not what's written though (ignoring the impending failed apologetic that one of them is so they can ignore the contradiction).

This one little thing is itself a house of cards easily blown over by anyone willing to read what's actually written and think about it for a second.

[POI]

...Even otseng acknowledges that the Bible is not inerrant.

I have not seen any real error in the Bible.

Who was Jesus's grandfather?

Happy tap dancing

Was it the god Uranus?

Ironically, this is probably a decent answer. Technically, if we believe the stories, Jesus's real father was a god. So another god as a grandfather makes more sense.

A better question for 1213 would actually be "Who was Joseph's father?". That way we can side step the above wrinkle.

However, even if we ignore that wrinkle and swallow the handwaving that will surely ensue about Joseph's father, what use does trying to tie Jesus to any bloodline through Joseph? You guessed it, trying to fiddle the story to line up with prophesies about being a son of David.

The strange thing is that both writers in question use a genealogy through fathers instead of mothers (because women didn't matter as much apparently). If they had gone through Mary's line, it would make more sense to a point. However, that would break the son of A, son of B, .... son of David. Wouldn't want to mention daughters or mothers and break things

Since Jesus was 'born of a virgin', they should be caring about the genealogy back from Mary. That's not what's written though (ignoring the impending failed apologetic that one of them is so they can ignore the contradiction).

This one little thing is itself a house of cards easily blown over by anyone willing to read what's actually written and think about it for a second.

And to think, this is yet another one of those topics in which skeptics and doubters could not so easily bring to light, if God had instead opted to write the book himself. Why leave such publication to obviously flawed human beings?

[1213]

...Even otseng acknowledges that the Bible is not inerrant.

I have not seen any real error in the Bible.

Who was Jesus's grandfather?

Obviously, God is the Father of Jesus, and God has no father, which is why Jesus doesn't have a grandfather from his fathers side. But, if we are speaking of his adoption father and his father, there are few possible answers to this:
1. His grandfather had two names, Jacob and Heli.
2. His grandfather was only Heli. Matthew is speaking of the book of generations, which is not necessary the same as the direct family tree of Jesus.
3. Family trees are not necessary complete in the Bible. It is possible that the original scriptures have been damaged so that we don't have all the names and there are missing parts. This doesn't mean Bible has error, only that it is not completely preserved.

All of the tree options are possible, which is why it is not possible to say there is an error. At the best, for your case, you can only say that there may be missing parts in the Bible.

[1213]

...Even otseng acknowledges that the Bible is not inerrant.

I have not seen any real error in the Bible.

Then you are not looking.

Why do you think atheists fail every time in showing a true error in the Bible?

[TRANSPONDER]

...Even otseng acknowledges that the Bible is not inerrant.

I have not seen any real error in the Bible.

Then you are not looking.

Why do you think atheists fail every time in showing a true error in the Bible?

We do not fail; you deny compelling evidence. Just as you deny (or ignore) the obvious reason that the genealogies do not match - they were worked out independently and so contradict, just as the gospels contradict throughout. The excuses are not even too good taken in isolation; considered with the many other and bigger contradictions, the go -to reason is that they are fabricated and not true.

Your 'Faith'manifests in not even considering the best answer but looking for excuses.

But be of good cheer that is what all the others do, too.

[benchwarmer]

...Even otseng acknowledges that the Bible is not inerrant.

I have not seen any real error in the Bible.

Who was Jesus's grandfather?

Obviously, God is the Father of Jesus, and God has no father, which is why Jesus doesn't have a grandfather from his fathers side.

Yes, this is the best answer, though it becomes problematic when trying to fulfill the prophesy of being a son of David (which a son of a God cannot be obviously).

The real error is who is Joseph's father:

But, if we are speaking of his adoption father and his father, there are few possible answers to this:
1. His grandfather had two names, Jacob and Heli.

If you opt for this answer, then no name given in the Bible can be trusted and the entire thing falls apart. The Bible either has some errors or it doesn't.

Even more damning to this argument is the fact that if you actually read what's written, it's not just one name that's different. In your apologetic, who was Jacob/Heli's father? Woops. Oh, that guy has two names as well. How about the next one. Oops again, two different names.

I think the only people who buy this argument are those who don't want to actually read what's written and just make stuff up to keep their beliefs intact.

2. His grandfather was only Heli. Matthew is speaking of the book of generations, which is not necessary the same as the direct family tree of Jesus.

Another fail. Please read what's actually written in the Bible. Stop making up stuff to sweep issues under the rug.

It clearly says:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

Jacob the father of Joseph

and

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

Joseph son of Heli

You can waffle all you want. It says 'father' and 'son', not relative, book, or whatever else you want to insert into scripture.

3. Family trees are not necessary complete in the Bible. It is possible that the original scriptures have been damaged so that we don't have all the names and there are missing parts. This doesn't mean Bible has error, only that it is not completely preserved.

This is the worst argument of all of them. Again, read what's written. There's no gap. It doesn't say 'related to through many generations from ...." or something like that. It says plainly either "son of ..." or "father of ...".

All of the tree options are possible, which is why it is not possible to say there is an error. At the best, for your case, you can only say that there may be missing parts in the Bible.

All of your options fail on simple reading.

At best, one of the genealogies has some errors in it. More likely, both contain errors. Possibly, both are completely made up to fiddle a fulfilled prophesy into reality.

When apologists claim there are no errors in the Bible and then have to start making up excuses that one name means another name (in multiple spots), there are gaps when none are written about, or the words in one place mean one thing, but in another mean something else I think we all know what's going on.

This is simply faith based denial of hard evidence. What's written is what's written. When you have to pretend that some of what's written doesn't mean what it says, you may as well just toss the entire thing since any word could mean anything (and as we see in apologetics, often does).