CHRISTIANS: Luke & Matthew's geneologies of Jesus (BOTH thru Joseph) differ. How is The Bible LITERALLY true?

Question

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

This Bible contradiction is so fully apparent that it's difficult to see how Fundamentalism survived one Christmas. How Christians with intellectual integrity reconcile these two disparate points of view. (The "one is thru Mary and the other thru Joseph" apologetic is clearly denied in the text itself.)

Luke 3:
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, ...

Matthew 1:
... Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Eliud, Eliud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

JOHN W: So in other words, the Bible is not literally true.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Does the following add any light on the topic?

"Nevertheless, the genealogy does not actually mention Mary: making it her genealogy is therefore a "daring" interpretation. More problematically, the Early Christians preserve no tradition identifying Luke's genealogy as Mary's. It was not until the 15th century AD, when Annius of Viterbo first suggested this reassignment of the genealogy to Mary, with it gaining popularity only in the following centuries since. Most scholars "safely" discount the possibility that the genealogy belongs to Mary."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus#Mary.2C_the_daughter_of_Heli.3F

Answer 1

Gospel writers have different audiences/readers and theological agenda.

Answer 2

First, does anyone care whether you don't accept the fact of Luke's line is tracing Mary's line? Secondly, promises were made to David which both lines did. Lastly, a virgin birth is the only way for Jesus' sacrifice to become effective. Only a perfect human life could be exchanged for the value of Adam's life. At least one parent must be perfect as God was. Oddly today, we have no problem if we understand medicine about a virgin birth. Artificial insemination is common place. (Without a male being present.) Projections are for taking genetic material from bones to remake an embryo into the donors' image. This would not require males at all. We just do not think of virgin birth in that way.

Answer 3

I asked a similar question and all I got were scathing answers full of indignation and accusations of "another bible expert" finding the 2% inconsistencies

they said that the fact the stories didn't jive was proof they were from different perspectives and they should not jive....

I'm not so sure one could use that argument and expect it to hold up in court

christmas, on the other hand is so unrelated to christianity save the fact a roman emperor long ago issued an edict to cover up an existing pagan celebration

all we find in bible is "peace on earth, goodwill towards men" that has anything to do with what we modern folks understand and any link to the bible

I think whirled peas is possible if we remove the reason for our wars...like GW saying "god told me to invade Iraq"

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article317805.ece

Answer 4

John W has answerred it well, no need to add anymore.

On your added comment if the Bible is literaly correct, you are forgotting that you have to analize not only the word by word part of the book but also, the author, time, to whom the book is address, location, among other facts to evalute the word by word meaning.

The Bible is literaly correct regarding Mathew & Luke's genealogies of Jesus. Considering jews LITERAL way of writting geanologies where names of women were very very rarely included the use of the name of a son in law after the name of a man is correct.

However, I agree that some parts of the Bible are symbolic, with use of figures of speach such as analogies, metaphors, and hyperboles. But, as John W has explained, Luke 3 and Mathew 1 are literal.

Answer 5

John W's answer is incorrect. According 2 him, Mary's inheritance passed over 2 Joseph because of Num. 27:1-8 and 36:6-8, but this is directly contradicted by Num. 36:9 which says: "Neither shall the inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe; but every one of the tribes of the children of Israel shall keep himself to his own inheritance." Since Mary and Joseph r from different tribes, Joseph couldnt have inherited her inheritance. Also, Num. 27:1-8 doesnt say anything about Mary's inheritance passing over 2 Joseph either.

Answer 6

I think John's answer was a very good one. And, yes, the Bible is true. I'm not sure what you mean when you use the term "literally". It certainly is true. Some parts of the Bible are stories that are figurative or a parable, so those parts are not literal, but the Bible is actually true.

Answer 7

The bible is not literally true

Those passages, basically show that Jesus came from Royalty - the Line of David

Answer 8

John W nailed it. Great answer.

He asks it again because it's a "baiting question", which tries to trip up Christians. I like these tho because they help keep me sharp.

Answer 9

Excellent question. I am going to keep my eye on the answers to this one. This is the most clear-cut contradiction I've seen in a question in some time.

Answer 10

See what happens to evil sinners who over analyze everything. Why can't you just accept it all without thinking?