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?

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. In fact is appears to ignore that both genealogies differ. This is known even iof Bible apologetics which excuses one as being the genealogy of Mary, which of course is not what it says.

One goes through the line of Solomon (by Nathan as i recall) and the other through the line of Zerubbabel after the Exile. They are clearly diferent and both cannot be the genealogy of Joseph as both claim.

Given the many, many other examples of guesswork, invention and falsification in the gospels, the conclusion is obvious. One cannot be the line of Joseph and probably neither are.

[1213]

...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)...

Jesus was born into the house of David. It does not necessary mean that Jesus must be a direct offspring of David.

Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, For he has visited and worked redemption for his people; And has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David (As he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets who have been from of old),
Luke 1:68-70

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.

By what is said in the Bible, it was common to use same names for many people in same family.

It happened on the eighth day, that they came to circumcise the child; and they would have called him Zacharias, after the name of the father. His mother answered, "Not so; but he will be called John." They said to her, "There is no one among your relatives who is called by this name."
Luke 1:59-61

This obviously leads to situation where there can be several people, who get mixed up, if only the one and same name used. That is why I think it is not miraculous, if people had more than one name, as also nowadays it is common. But, obviously this can lead to many difficulties in making of family trees.

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

The way Matthew speaks is very different from Luke. First of all, he speaks about book of generation of Jesus This can mean it is a list of important generations. During and between those those generations, there can be several less important generations.

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Matt. 1:1

It is also good to notice. It is said, Jesus, the son of Abraham. This means, person can be called a son, even if he is actually a grandson, or grandgrand...son. And this means, when it is said someone fathered someone, as Matthew says it, it can mean for example that Abraham fathered Solomon, even though he is not his direct father.

But, because Matthew has a lot less people than Luke, and he is speaking of book of generation of Jesus, I think he is not speaking of direct exact family tree.

Book of generation of Jesus can mean also that it is about the generation that was born the same time.

[1213]

We do not fail

you deny compelling evidence.

That is not true. The problem is, you fail to show any compelling evidence.

Just as you deny (or ignore) the obvious reason that the genealogies do not match

By what is said in the text, they don't seem to even try to be about the exact same thing. Matthew is speaking of book of generation, which can be a different thing than a direct family tree. Unless you can give a good reason to think they must be about the same thing, I think you fail miserably.

[TRANSPONDER]

We do not fail

you deny compelling evidence.

That is not true. The problem is, you fail to show any compelling evidence.

Just as you deny (or ignore) the obvious reason that the genealogies do not match

By what is said in the text, they don't seem to even try to be about the exact same thing. Matthew is speaking of book of generation, which can be a different thing than a direct family tree. Unless you can give a good reason to think they must be about the same thing, I think you fail miserably.

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. plainly they are not. They are different. One has to be wrong. How can you ignore this plain fact printed in the Bible unless you are ignoring or denying (yet again) what the Bible plainly says?

[benchwarmer]

We do not fail

you deny compelling evidence.

That is not true. The problem is, you fail to show any compelling evidence.

Just as you deny (or ignore) the obvious reason that the genealogies do not match

By what is said in the text, they don't seem to even try to be about the exact same thing. Matthew is speaking of book of generation, which can be a different thing than a direct family tree. Unless you can give a good reason to think they must be about the same thing, I think you fail miserably.

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. plainly they are not. They are different. One has to be wrong. How can you ignore this plain fact printed in the Bible unless you are ignoring or denying (yet again) what the Bible plainly says?

At this point there's not much use continuing this line of debate. When there is hard evidence that readers can check themselves, it's pretty much over.

Apologists can make up excuses and hope some people buy it, but I'm not too worried. Most who buy it have already bought the premise the Bible is without fault. There's not much you can do at that point. We can only help those who may not be familiar with the problems and hope they do their own research.

[TRANSPONDER]

We do not fail

you deny compelling evidence.

That is not true. The problem is, you fail to show any compelling evidence.

Just as you deny (or ignore) the obvious reason that the genealogies do not match

By what is said in the text, they don't seem to even try to be about the exact same thing. Matthew is speaking of book of generation, which can be a different thing than a direct family tree. Unless you can give a good reason to think they must be about the same thing, I think you fail miserably.

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. plainly they are not. They are different. One has to be wrong. How can you ignore this plain fact printed in the Bible unless you are ignoring or denying (yet again) what the Bible plainly says?

At this point there's not much use continuing this line of debate. When there is hard evidence that readers can check themselves, it's pretty much over.

Apologists can make up excuses and hope some people buy it, but I'm not too worried. Most who buy it have already bought the premise the Bible is without fault. There's not much you can do at that point. We can only help those who may not be familiar with the problems and hope they do their own research.

Yes. Atheist apologists learn this lesson early on. We - yall start eagerly thinking that we just have to Explain it all and give the evidence and the believers will say "Coo -er...we wuz wrong".

They will not, mostly, and they will use every method they can from honest efforts to contest the atheist arguments to fiddling the evidence, epistemology and even what the Bible says and end up with faithbased dismissal, ignoring and insults.

The argument has always been to the public, if they are looking (and I'm glad there are over 70 looking in) and is never about getting the believer to admit the atheist has the stronger case. They will never admit that, because....

I gotta theory... The think that submission to their god, the compassionate, the merciful, allows Him to connect to their mind and download Himself and his wisdom and truth into their heads.

That is, Faith = truth. Thus not only do they feel free to misrepresent evidence and strawman science, because it is only useful if it supports the Truth (Faith) but they can NEVER admit they are wrong about anything serious, even when it is proven, like the Genealogies, right here in he text. Because if they admit they are wrong about One Big Faithbased Item (1) the glass house collapses and the (unspoken) belief that what their mind says is God's Truth will shatter.

That explains the utterly ubiquitous but NEVER - mentioned elephant in the room - the Ghost Bible. Not the one on the shelf, but the one in the head of the apologist that says what is preferred, not what is on the printed page. Slavery of course being the test case and first stop denial of what the Bible actually says.

Deprogramming for cultfaith is hard to do, especially for those who despised reason and logic from the start.

Let me see...can I find a vid where a Creationist tried to find some Evolutionists fallacies (he used atheist ones as often as not) and they were so bad that one has to ask 'Is he an idiot or just lying?'



Thing is with Creationist apologists, it seems like they know their strawmans of evolution (and atheism) are wrong as they have been corrected, but you can't rule out Faith - where fact, evidence and even reality is deemed false, if it conflicts with Faith. I find it hard to get my head around it, but I believe that happens.

(1) OBFI my acronyms are never good ones.

[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.

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

We don't. Your 'faith' trumps all. This is why you regularly ignore or spin some logical responses. See post 85, in this thread, for the latest example.

[benchwarmer]

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

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

We have already seen the excusing of different names meaning the same name, events portrayed at different times as being the same time or simply done twice, and various other denials for every single issue brought up. At this point, what exactly would pass the test? I imagine if we could find a line of scripture saying that blue smarties are red there would be a lengthy apologetic about how in ancient times blue smarties were actually red because blue dye turned red or something silly.

Is there any point bringing up the fact that the author of Matthew didn't understand what he was reading and made Jesus ride two donkeys to force a prophecy to be fulfilled? I LOL every time I think of that one.

[TRANSPONDER]

Again, we know what is going on. ATrue error (real error) is one that is admitted. But when the genealogies bothe supposed to be the line of Joseph are different, no error is admitted. Thus all the time it isn't admitted, it isn't a true error.

We have seen so many ingenious and inventive excuses to get over problems, though the one about Cosmic bacground radiation imitating day and night before the sun was made is ingenuous rather than ingenious.

The efforts to split Mary Magdalene off from the other woman or women hardly works especially as Luke says she and the others saw and heard all these things and John says nothing of any of that. Any reasonable person would say it is a contradiction that must be taken as separately invented stories that don't match, but so long as it is denied, it isn't a true error.

Luke did alter the angel's message and we know why. The disciples did not go to Galilee and founded the church in Jerusalem so Luke learned from Paul's letters and he wangles in an appearance to Simon that nobody else knows about to match with 1 Corinthians.

There was the effort to patch over the synoptics having Passover seder before the arrest but (for the priests) after the trial.The argument was the priests could eat it any time they liked during the week, but is there any real evidence for that?

And of course, the order of creation in Genesis is wrong, but just deny the palaeontological evidence. Deny slavery in the Bible really is chattel slavery and that John has never heard of the transfiguration. Deny everything and there are no real errors.

[1213]

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

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