There are no contradictions in the Bible, eh?

Question

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gen_ml.html

This link shows the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew and in Luke. Only 5 of the names are the same (including Jesus and Joseph). They even contradict on Joseph's father. Also, in the Matthew genealogy there are 28 names. In the Luke one, there are 43. If the authors of the Bible were told what to write by God, you'd think they would have gotten Jesus's grandfather's name right. Christians will probably just say that all these names are just 2 different names for the same people though. I love how Christians say there are NO contradictions in the Bible when it is taken in the right context. How else can you take a genealogy besides assuming that it's a list of ancestors?

shadow_wings, So Mary and Joseph both happened to be decended from David? Maybe Luke and Matthew should have addressed if they were tracing the genealogy through Mary or Joseph. That seems pretty important and this is supposed to be divinely inspired after all. Since they didn't, I assume they each meant to do it through Joseph's ancestors. You're argument is plausible, however unlikely. If what you say is the actual truth though (which it most likely is not), Christians at least have to admit that Jesus' parents were incestuous, which is almost as bad as the genealogies being contrived by each author. Also, it would have just so happened that Mary and Joseph were both decendants of David which is also unlikely. There's just too much that doesn't fit together perfectly as it should if the Bible is God's word. There should be no question about any of it's validity and it should by crystal clear.

Answer 1

Preaching to the choir, baby. Been there, seen that, love it. Of course there's ALWAYS an "excuse" such as the ever popular "you MUST'VE taken that out of context".

Answer 2

The genealogical links are different because they go back to David through different lines. This is really simple. But if you need more
references try "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. Two volumes, very interesting reading even if you are not a Christian.
I Cr 13;8a
10-7-6

Answer 3

Matthew's gospel was written for the Jewish people. Matthew tries to convince the Jews that Jesus Christ was indeed the royal son of David. Seven times in the Matthew's Gospel we see where the statement "son of David" is used (1:1, 9:27, 12:23, 15:22, 20:30, 21:9, 22:42). Only in Matthew does Christ speak of "The throne of his glory" (19:28, 25:31). And only in Matthew is Jerusalem referred to as "the holy city" (4:5). Therefore, Matthew spends a great deal of time trying to convince the Jewish people that Jesus Christ was indeed the "King of the Jews" (27:29, 27:37).

Matthew begins with Abraham, the "Father" of the Jewish nation, then follows the line through David the King. Each individual that Matthew lists is of royal lineage. This gives evidence of the royal blood line of Jesus.

As Matthew continues to follow the line from David to Christ, Matthew traces the lineage through Jesus' earthly father, Joseph. This, too, indicates that Matthew is writing to the Jewish people. During first century times, if a Jewish man adopted a son, that son receives the father's lineage. Therefore, according to Jewish tradition, Jesus would be given the genealogy of his adopted father.

Luke's gospel, being written for the Greeks, would not be as interested in the royal lineage of Christ, rather his true earthly lineage. In Luke's account of the genealogy of Christ, it is my opinion, that Luke traces Christ's ancestry through his mother, Mary. I say this because Luke only mentions Joseph to identify who Christ was. "As was supposed the son of Joseph," (3:23). The genealogy of Luke and the genealogy of Matthew agree exactly with the line between Abraham and David. From David to Mary in Luke, or from David to Joseph in Matthew, the lineage changes. Only three times do the two different accounts mention the same names, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, and possibly Matthat (Matthan in Matthew). This can be explained very easily. Mary and Joseph were first cousins.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Be Blessed and Blessed Be

Answer 4

i've actually been there, as a Agnostic i find it as stupid Atheist BS. Most of the things on that site are drawn from misintreptations using the old style "King James" bible, read the same text in newer translations and it becomes clearer.

Note that the use of terms and meanings in the english lanuage has changed considerable from King James times. Honestly that dumbass who publshed the site should have ran it across a couple of experts.

I on the other hand brought the same site to my friend's pastor, an over about an hour and ahalf each one i had picked that guy clearly debunked and explained it. Most because of the King James issue.

Answer 5

Jesus doesn't have a grandfather on Joseph's side of the family. Jesus wasn't even the son of Joseph. He was the Son of God put into a woman (Mary).

Answer 6

Probably two different genealogies, one showing the genetic line through Mary and the other the "legal" line through Joseph.

Answer 7

If you want to know what the Bible really says, learn to read Greek. Then you can read the original transcripts and not translations. Even the English translations differ one from another. Or get a Greek reference Bible...a little simpler. Don't worry so much about what man has translated, alot of the Bible is concepts more than literal. Just make sure your relationship with God is where it should be, that's the most important part...

Answer 8

you sure are interested in something that you dont believe in. before you read more of the bible pray for understanding first ,or go to bible study

Answer 9

The bible is metaphoric.

Answer 10

there are alot of contradictions.
I think a good answer can be found in the following sites

www.sultan.org
www.geocities.com/wisamzaqoot

good luck