Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 54

Thread: Incorrect or incomplete?

  1. #1

    Incorrect or incomplete?

    There are about five incompatible pieces of Christian apologetic which are used in order to avoid saying that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke contradict.

    Two of them involve saying that something in the text means something other than what it says, meaning the text is incorrect.

    The other three involve adding a piece of information which the text fails to include, meaning the text is incomplete.

    If you are an adherent of the idea that there is no contradiction between them, which explanation do you opt for and why do you not regard the rival explanations as true?

  2. #2

    Re: Incorrect or incomplete?

    I like the explanation that the Matthew genealogy traces Joseph's ancestry and the Luke genealogy traces Mary's ancestry. They both converge at David. I'm not familiar with the other explanations, so I cannot comment on them.

  3. #3

    Re: Incorrect or incomplete?

    The five rival approaches are as follows:

    Option one:
    Matthew's gospel is incorrect. It says 'Joseph' when it should say 'Mary'.

    Option two:
    Luke's gospel is incorrect. It says 'Joseph' when it should say 'Mary'.

    Option three:
    Luke's gospel is incomplete. Where it says 'being the son, as it was thought, of Joseph son of Heli, son of Matthat,' it should say 'being the son, as it was thought of Joseph son of Heli, but in reality of Mary, granddaughter of Matthat'.

    Option four:
    One of the gospels fails to mention that Joseph had a stepfather.

    Option five:
    Both of the gospels fail to include all of the generations in their lists and fail to mention that some of the people on the list have two names.

    The obvious explanation is that one or both of the genealogies is false. For those who do not go with the obvious, do you have a sixth option or can you explain why four of the five above cannot be true?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,887
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Incorrect or incomplete?

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidYoung View Post
    There are about five incompatible pieces of Christian apologetic which are used in order to avoid saying that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke contradict.

    Two of them involve saying that something in the text means something other than what it says, meaning the text is incorrect.

    The other three involve adding a piece of information which the text fails to include, meaning the text is incomplete.

    If you are an adherent of the idea that there is no contradiction between them, which explanation do you opt for and why do you not regard the rival explanations as true?
    There are more differences, in Matthew we have the Royal genealogy, in Luke the Human genealogy, so logically they have difference in them.

    Matthew starts with The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham , Luke doesn't start with the genealogy of Christ, but with foretelling the birth of John the Baptist, then the foretelling of the birth of Jesus Christ. Only in Luke 3 the genealogy of Jesus Christ is given, back to Adam, whom BTW also was the son of God.

    In Luke 3:23 it says according to the Greek: And Jesus Himself when He began His ministry He was about thirty years old, being ( as reckoned by law ) the Son of Joseph, Who was the son of Heli . The Companion Bible has this in its margin Joseph was begotten by Jacob, and was his natural son (Mat. 1:16). He could be the legal son of Heli, therefore, only by marriage with Heli’s daughter (Mary), and be reckoned so according to law (Greek. nomizo). It does not say begat in the case of Heli .

    Aristarkos

  5. #5

    Re: Incorrect or incomplete?

    Except that that extra detail is not included in Luke's account and needs to be added. Would you agree then that the Bible is incomplete?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    5,665
    Blog Entries
    35

    Re: Incorrect or incomplete?

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidYoung View Post
    There are about five incompatible pieces of Christian apologetic which are used in order to avoid saying that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke contradict.

    Two of them involve saying that something in the text means something other than what it says, meaning the text is incorrect.

    The other three involve adding a piece of information which the text fails to include, meaning the text is incomplete.

    If you are an adherent of the idea that there is no contradiction between them, which explanation do you opt for and why do you not regard the rival explanations as true?
    Why do you care? You think this is all a game? We are here for your amusement?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,887
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Incorrect or incomplete?

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidYoung View Post
    Except that that extra detail is not included in Luke's account and needs to be added. Would you agree then that the Bible is incomplete?
    No, not at all. The four Gospels show the Lord from four points of view if I may call it that. We have the whole Scripture, it is not uncommon to get different parts of the puzzle from different parts of Scripture. Scripture as we have it, is complete, not proper translated and that is where the problems originate.

    Aristarkos

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,680
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Incorrect or incomplete?

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidYoung View Post
    There are about five incompatible pieces of Christian apologetic which are used in order to avoid saying that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke contradict.

    Two of them involve saying that something in the text means something other than what it says, meaning the text is incorrect.

    The other three involve adding a piece of information which the text fails to include, meaning the text is incomplete.

    If you are an adherent of the idea that there is no contradiction between them, which explanation do you opt for and why do you not regard the rival explanations as true?
    On the contrary, I don't see any incomplete, incorrect or contradictory text(s) between Matthew and Luke. Their Gospels are simply narrated from each of the apostles' perspective.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    4,754
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Incorrect or incomplete?

    I've not heard of any of the five explanations that the OP cites. In terms of those in the OP, they are all incorrect.

    Here's the explanation of the two genealogies.

    • Matthew is writing to Jews. He writes the Christmas story from Joseph's perspective [and the wise men]. Jews were looking for a Messiah with "credentials". One, being a Jew and two being a descendant from David. So Matthew begins with Abraham, proving Jesus was a Jew, goes forward through David, proving he, is of the line of David, and ends with Jospeh, Jesus' legal father.
    • Luke is writing to Gentiles. They don't know and don't care about Jewish credentials. They need to know that Jesus is God's Son. Luke writes the Christmas story from Mary's perspective [and the shepherd/angels]. Luke starts the genealogy with Jesus, himself and goes backward all the way to God.


    The two genealogies are exactly alike until you get to King David. Then Mary's line goes through David's son, Nathan and Joseph's line goes through David's son Solomon.
    ".....it's your nickel"

  10. #10

    Re: Incorrect or incomplete?

    Luke's account does not mention Mary. It does, however, mention Joseph.

    For it to be the genealogy of Mary, it is incorrect to include Joseph and incomplete by omitting Mary.

    And how do you know that the rival explanation of Joseph having a stepfather is not true?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    5,665
    Blog Entries
    35

    Re: Incorrect or incomplete?

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidYoung View Post
    Luke's account does not mention Mary. It does, however, mention Joseph.

    For it to be the genealogy of Mary, it is incorrect to include Joseph and incomplete by omitting Mary.

    And how do you know that the rival explanation of Joseph having a stepfather is not true?
    Whether a list of people is "incomplete" depends on the purpose for the list. One could, for instance, develop a list of all baseball players who hit a home run at least once in their career. Suppose the purpose was to provide an exhaustive list of every baseball player that ever hit a home run. The list is falsifiable because all one need do, in order to claim that the list in incomplete, is to produce another player who hit a home run that is not on the list. But what if the purpose of the list was to document those who hit a home run in a major league game? Then the list is going to be shorter. What if the purpose of the list was to document the rise and fall of the negro league? Then the list becomes even shorter. What if the purpose of the list was to memorialize those who excelled in baseball before the introduction of steroids? The list is falsifiable on that basis only.

    Before one can claim that a genealogy is incomplete, one needs to know the purpose of the genealogy. If one is attempting to provide every father-son linkage to establish a pedigree, then the list is falsifiable on that basis. But if a modified genealogy is provided, which serves a different purpose, then the list is falsifiable on that basis. Consider Matthew's summary statement.

    Matthew 1:
    17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations.


    Clearly, Matthew is doing more than simply establishing a father-son linkage in order to establish the pedigree of the messiah or focus on his lineage. Matthew has purposely divided the lineage into three significant sections, marked by three important milestones along the way. The genealogy itself is only a framework on which hangs a more salient and profound reality: God is with us. He was with us from Abraham to David; he was with us from David to the deportation to Babylon; and he was with us from the deportation to Babylon even unto the birth of the Messiah. The genealogy is nothing more than an index for Jewish history, which is a profound record of God's faithfulness to his people. A promise made to Abraham remained unfulfilled for thousands of years until the coming of the Messiah. God did not forget and he remained faithful and he brought his promise into reality. God's word never returns to him void.

    This is good news for all those who trust in God.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    4,754
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Incorrect or incomplete?

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidYoung View Post
    Luke's account does not mention Mary. It does, however, mention Joseph.

    For it to be the genealogy of Mary, it is incorrect to include Joseph and incomplete by omitting Mary.

    And how do you know that the rival explanation of Joseph having a stepfather is not true?
    No, Luke does not mention Mary. Most genealogies did not include mothers which is what makes Matthew's genealogy unique. Matthew did go from man to man to man, but inserted a few mothers along side the names of a few men. Mary's genealogy, the true bloodline, is presented in her husband's name.


    Why would Joseph have two genealogies through two different men? Where would the bloodline of Jesus be?
    ".....it's your nickel"

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,680
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Incorrect or incomplete?

    Quote Originally Posted by jayne View Post
    I've not heard of any of the five explanations that the OP cites. In terms of those in the OP, they are all incorrect.

    Here's the explanation of the two genealogies.

    • Matthew is writing to Jews. He writes the Christmas story from Joseph's perspective [and the wise men]. Jews were looking for a Messiah with "credentials". One, being a Jew and two being a descendant from David. So Matthew begins with Abraham, proving Jesus was a Jew, goes forward through David, proving he, is of the line of David, and ends with Jospeh, Jesus' legal father.
    • Luke is writing to Gentiles. They don't know and don't care about Jewish credentials. They need to know that Jesus is God's Son. Luke writes the Christmas story from Mary's perspective [and the shepherd/angels]. Luke starts the genealogy with Jesus, himself and goes backward all the way to God.


    The two genealogies are exactly alike until you get to King David. Then Mary's line goes through David's son, Nathan and Joseph's line goes through David's son Solomon.
    I've never thought of the two accounts like this before, ie Matthew writing to Jews and Luke to Gentiles. Thank you.

  14. #14

    Re: Incorrect or incomplete?

    If Mary's genealogy is presented in her husband's name, that means the Bible contains a falsehood.

    If you have to add additional information, e.g. which audience they are writing to when neither specifically says so (except one named person in the case of Luke-Acts), or that a genealogy is edited highlights rather than a complete list, then the Bible is incomplete.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    5,665
    Blog Entries
    35

    Re: Incorrect or incomplete?

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidYoung View Post
    If Mary's genealogy is presented in her husband's name, that means the Bible contains a falsehood.
    How so? My sister's family tree will be traced through our father, his father, and his father's father and so on. It makes perfect sense.

    If you have to add additional information, e.g. which audience they are writing to when neither specifically says so (except one named person in the case of Luke-Acts), or that a genealogy is edited highlights rather than a complete list, then the Bible is incomplete.
    So what?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 26
    Last Post: Dec 6th 2010, 01:15 PM
  2. The Book of Revelation (incorrect)
    By chivalrous in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: Oct 22nd 2008, 02:52 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •