Question for proponents of Biblical inerrancy: Does 13=14?

Question

In the Matthew chapter 1 there's a genealogy in which the author claims there are 3 groups of 14 generations each. Let's ignore the fact that in one group the author omits names/generations found in the Jewish Scriptures, which were presumably his source. If you count each generation only once, you end up with two groups of 14 and one group of 13.

As someone who doesn't accept Biblical inerrancy, this is not a problem for me: 14 is the numerical value of the name David, and the whole point of using the number is symbolic. But if you believe that the Bible is accurate in all its details when it provides numbers, historical information, scientific data, etc. then this is a problem.

How do you answer this? Would you propose that there be a special "Biblical mathematics"? Shouldn't the evidence from the Bible itself determine your view, rather than imposing your presuppositions about inerrancy on the Bible?

http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/blog/

NOTE: Jesus is already included in the 13. You can count him twice if you like, but then you are doing special Biblical math.

This may be "splitting hairs", but if the details are not precise on mere numbers, then don't try arguing that the details are precise on biology, history, etc.

Answer 1

Can the 'numerical value of names' argument be applied entirely across the bible and still be valid?

My biggest bone with the 'inerrancy' of the bible is that it seems there you have to 'interpret' one sentence literally, the next one allegorically, the third as hyperbole, the fourth as exaggeration, and so on and so on. I could apply this cherry-picking of literary devices to make any book say almost anything I wanted it to.

Answer 2

I was thinking that Jesus was the 14th. (Bacha 2_3's answer)
I think a numerical discrepancy that can't be twisted to mean something else are with the different verses that say, the Crucifixion lasted three days and three nights and then there's the other version. It says it only lasted until the third day. That leaves the third night out.

Answer 3

You missed the whole point of the 14th person in the last set of the geneology in Matthew. Read it again.

Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of MARY, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Because Jesus was not the physical son of Joseph, but was born through the virgin birth, MARY is the missing generation in the line. It is not a mistake or a miscount, but rather an affirmation of the virgin birth. That is why Matthew makes a point of Jesus being born from Mary, not Joseph.

Not a contradiction but rather a very important doctrinal and theological truth.

Answer 4

A bit of research should clear this up. Often times, geneologies would skip a generation and not mention who the father was, but the grandfather. Sometimes the problem lies in mistaking similar names (Jehoiakim Jehoiachin). this is of that sort, and would not have caused any Jew reading the text any problem whatever since they were exposed to the geneologies from infancy and knew how to trace their tribal heritage. Summaries of this sort are common to the Hebrew scriptures.

Answer 5

With all of the *hundreds* of problems with the bible you choose this as your bone to pick?

It's a valid question, but I think you might be splitting hairs.

Answer 6

You have to count Jesus "the last Adam" as an additional generation and therefore it's 14

Grasping at straws aren't we?

Answer 7

You forgot to count Jesus Himself.

Answer 8

We never said that every little jot & tittle were accurate.....

The message of the cross is simple though:

Scripture is God-breathed (inspired)....
Christ died & rose again....
Those who are in Him will do the same someday

Those who try to nit-pick it will learn the hard way someday.....and that will be a sad day for them.

Answer 9

The bible is to be used for faithbuilding only. All that other stuff is .........