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?

[1213]

...
The problem is, I show compelling evidence, and you ignore or deny it. By what is said in the text both are claimed to be the genealogies of Joseph...

Why do you ignore the word "book of generation"?

[benchwarmer]

...Out of curiosity, what exactly would a 'true error' look like?...

Error that doesn't depend on interpretation, or persons own beliefs.

Like what? Please give an example. i.e. if you were to find this written in the Bible, what would it look like exactly?

You already freely interpret words from one to the other just because they appear in the Bible, so how would you avoid doing that in some particular instance?

We already see people interpreting the word 'day' to mean something else when apologizing for the Genesis creation stories.

We see people reinterpreting family names, something that is about the least open to interpretation there is, yet it's done to remove the appearance of an error.

If you can't give a concrete example of what one of these errors could look like, then your argument fails. I think I know why you probably won't give a concrete example. You know that we will scour the Bible and find something that matches your example and then you would have a problem.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
The problem is, I show compelling evidence, and you ignore or deny it. By what is said in the text both are claimed to be the genealogies of Joseph...

Why do you ignore the word "book of generation"?

Because I have not seen why it is relevant. Relevant at least to the plain fact that bot genealogies purport to be the line of Joseph through David, and yet they are different. I believe that's what we are talking about, isn't it? It is not only irrelevant but wrong to try to pretend they are something other than what they quite plainly are.
Incidentally, I rather wonder why the Davidic descent is so important. Jeses wasn't Joseph's actual son anyway, so it hardly matters, but it seems it was necessary to quality as a messiah, which isn't actually true. Jesus could have been (and the Bible says he was) messiah and High Priest through the order of Melchizedek, which is, not by election let alone family descent, but because God said so.

I have a theory that the 'Son of David' title became very important for the assault on the Temple when Jesus was going to kick -start his messianic campaign as "King of the Jews" which is of course the reason why the Romans wexecuted him.

In the vid I posted I recall that for the first time the refuting atheists said it - Jesus was a rebel against Rome. The idea is getting out, it seems.

[1213]

Because I have not seen why it is relevant.

I think every word in the Bible is relevant, if one wants to understand it correctly. But, if you want to fiddle what it says to suit your own personal 'religion', I understand if you want to ignore words that doesn't fit to your agenda.

Relevant at least to the plain fact that bot genealogies purport to be the line of Joseph through David, and yet they are different. I believe that's what we are talking about, isn't it? It is not only irrelevant but wrong to try to pretend they are something other than what they quite plainly are.

How can you say they are plainly the same, if the difference is over 10 names? I think that indicates that they are not about the same matter actually, especially when Matthew is speaking of book of generation.

Incidentally, I rather wonder why the Davidic descent is so important....

Because of the expectation that he will come from the house of David. (Which doesn't necessary mean he has to be direct descendant, only that he is born to the family).

[1213]

Like what? Please give an example. i.e. if you were to find this written in the Bible, what would it look like exactly?

True error would be for example something that is a real contradiction. And a real contradiction is something that has two claims that are mutually exclusive. For example:
Claim 1: the table was round, nothing else ever.
Claim 2: the table was square, nothing else ever.

You already freely interpret words from one to the other just because they appear in the Bible, so how would you avoid doing that in some particular instance?

I don't think I interpret. I think I remove the atheistic interpretation from the alleged errors. I think it would be best to allow Bible to explain what it means, instead of making own interpretations. And it would also be good to avoid own conclusions of what is said, unless there is some very good Biblical reason for it.

[benchwarmer]

Like what? Please give an example. i.e. if you were to find this written in the Bible, what would it look like exactly?

True error would be for example something that is a real contradiction. And a real contradiction is something that has two claims that are mutually exclusive. For example:
Claim 1: the table was round, nothing else ever.
Claim 2: the table was square, nothing else ever.

C'mon, you would just claim they were talking about different tables. Even I can bypass that one.

You already freely interpret words from one to the other just because they appear in the Bible, so how would you avoid doing that in some particular instance?

I don't think I interpret.

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

I think I remove the atheistic interpretation from the alleged errors.

You mean you tell us to not trust what's actually written. We point out the actual words, you attempt to fiddle them to remove problems. Who is making errors here? I think readers can tell.

I think it would be best to allow Bible to explain what it means,

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

instead of making own interpretations. And it would also be good to avoid own conclusions of what is said, unless there is some very good Biblical reason for it.

So circular reasoning?

[TRANSPONDER]

Because I have not seen why it is relevant.

I think every word in the Bible is relevant, if one wants to understand it correctly. But, if you want to fiddle what it says to suit your own personal 'religion', I understand if you want to ignore words that doesn't fit to your agenda.

I don't have a religion butb if yopu want to puke over everr every religion that has a different dogma from youn (including mainstream Christianity, it seems) go ahead. Meanwhile, then only one found fiddling falsifying, ignoring and inventing is you.

Relevant at least to the plain fact that bot genealogies purport to be the line of Joseph through David, and yet they are different. I believe that's what we are talking about, isn't it? It is not only irrelevant but wrong to try to pretend they are something other than what they quite plainly are.

How can you say they are plainly the same, if the difference is over 10 names? I think that indicates that they are not about the same matter actually, especially when Matthew is speaking of book of generation.

Thank you what a splendid examplem of either failure to comprehend the simplest point or a terrible attempt to bamboozle. Which hasn't a hope of working. The differences show they are different genealogies. Both ending in Joseph 'father' of Jesus shows they are 'about the same thing'. If you do'nt admit you are talking nonsense, and everyone else will clearly see it, and not in the least be fooled by your attempt to pass it off as something else.

Incidentally, I rather wonder why the Davidic descent is so important....

Because of the expectation that he will come from the house of David. (Which doesn't necessary mean he has to be direct descendant, only that he is born to the family).

Yeah, well clearly he was a cuckoo - child as Joseph knew Jesus wasn't his so Davidic descent was by adoption. But it seems to me that Davidic descent being required was curious as why the legitimacy of Jewish Kingship even mattered as it was Jewish traditional authority that was being questioned in Pauline Christianity. Clearly Messianism in the sense of royalty and kingship was an issue but I fail to see why, unless it is what messiah was originally about and, like mush of the gospels they were stuck with it. The whole anointing, donkey ride (as Sukkhot, not Passover with Jesus as a liberator not a sacrifice) and the whole Temple fracas (much watered down and I suspect described by Luke just before Jesus arrives at Jerusalem (1) and the effort at the trial to turn a claim to be messiah (which is only made in private at Bethsaida anyway) is one that means Godship in Christian eyes but means nothing of the kind to Jews, so the effort to make not only a god - claim but a blasphemy charge, shows that the gospels were not written by Jews but by Christians.

(1) Luke 13.1 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered....
it looks like he is describing an event which is gone from history, but looks like Barabbas' insurrection where a bust up failed and Barrabbas was arrested. If (as I argue) Jesus and Barabbas are the same person, then we know what happened at the temple and why it is never mentioned as the charge, though it is the charge given for the execution.

[1213]

Like what? Please give an example. i.e. if you were to find this written in the Bible, what would it look like exactly?

True error would be for example something that is a real contradiction. And a real contradiction is something that has two claims that are mutually exclusive. For example:
Claim 1: the table was round, nothing else ever.
Claim 2: the table was square, nothing else ever.

C'mon, you would just claim they were talking about different tables. Even I can bypass that one.

With "the" it meant they were talking about the same table. But, that is good point, often it is possible that people are talking about different matter.

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?

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

I only show that your interpretation can be wrong.

[benchwarmer]

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 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.

[TRANSPONDER]

It would be nice if the Bible - apologists accepted obvious contradictions

Luke - the table was round
Matthew - the table was square.
(analogy of the genealogies)

Apologists ' they are talking about two different tables'.

"But it says they were the same table in the same place."

'But the passages are talking about the food put on it, not the shape of the table' (Generations, not who was Jesus' father)

'it's still contradictory' (since our pal used one as an analogy and the genealogy as the apologetic was more serious a contradiction than what shape table)

We get slam - dunk contradiction and we still get excuses, evasions and personals, like accusations of bias, when they are horribly biased, accusations of not understanding when they don't understand and don't want to, and accusing atheists of disregarding the evidence when they are the ones that disregard the evidence.

Of course, that happens even with clear shape of table contradictions. But most are more like a jury vote, with probabilities. The 'biggies' are pretty slam -dunk. Like Joseph could not have gone to Egypt until Herod was dead AND gone back to Nazareth after the circumcision, even without the intention to return to Judea but was told to relocate and settled in Nazareth evidently for the first time, while in Luke they lived there and only went to Judea for the census. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the two stories have to be as different as the Genealogies or a square and round table, and anyone other than those who eyes are blinkered by Faith must see that the nativities have to be separate and totally contradictory stories, and the genealogies have to be different and contradictory efforts to concoct a Davidic line for Jesus.

cue: "There might have been a Davidic line, but the writers did not know it."

True, but the fact (evidence- based) remains that they clearly did not know it, just as they clearly did not know facts about the claimed birth in Bethlehem and had to invent stories. And that means the contradictions in the resurrection are to be taken as invented stories, just on the contradictions between them, and there is of course, far more.

P.s folks, and especially those scores of browsers I see looking in (89 right now ), which matters so much. I have Faith in humans, faults and all. I believe they want to be right. Right in their actions, right in their worldview and right in their understanding. They may (especially in the US, ) have been sold the Big Lie of the Bible, at least accepting that it broadly tells the truth, give or take a few excusable errors. But I believe that the cozy snugfeel of Faith can be replaced by the satisfaction of "seeing through the trick" when explained to them. No-one ever explains it to them, because the Churches find it expedient to lie to the people for their own benefit. But we have to show and even shew, serious and real contradictions that undermine the Bible claims and they will understand - I have faith in that - and they will not credit the excuses, smokescreening and gaslighting that Bible apologists do.

I ask only they will take the message and spread it. We are few, you browsers are legion. Take it to the blogs, vids and websites and tip them off in comment, chat and e -mail. Give them the Explanation of the trick, if they haven't worked it out for themselves. The word will spread.