Greetings R,
If you find I’m overbearing or making you uncomfortable with your faith, let me know and I will discontinue this discussion.
Was not our original aim to see if the Bible is inerrant and do the genealogies of Jesus verses contradict this inerrancy?
(1) I’m not sure what your bible says, but mine says:
Matthew 1: 16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Luke 3: 23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli,
24 Which was [the son] of Matthat, which was [the son] of Levi, which was [the son] of Melchi, which was [the son] of Janna, which was [the son] of Joseph,
There is nothing here that says that the genealogy in Luke is that of Mary. In Luke 3:23 it definitely says Joseph was the son of Heli, so this genealogy is obviously the genealogy of Joseph. There is nothing in any other verses in Luke that says this is the genealogy of Mary. You are making this up, or someone has misinformed you, because the bible verses don’t tell you that.
If the above verses were in any other book you read, you would say that Luke’s genealogy is that of Joseph. Why not here? I know why. Because you assume the bible cannot have a contradiction in it, and to accomplish this you and others will twist words around to mean something the verses do not say.
If the God of the Universe meant something other than what the words say in that God’s message; then that God has sent a puzzle (a deception) for people to waste a lot of time trying to solve (of course it gives lucrative jobs to a lot of clergy, theologians, evangelists, authors, etc. who interpret it for you). To me this is not just and not fair, if it is a message that is supposed to be taken seriously by everyone and given to everyone.
You are suggesting the bible verses don’t really say what the words in it say? Why would the God of the Universe not clearly state everything in the bible without seeming to be a contradiction or factual error? From what the Christians say the message of the bible is supposed to be so simple. Why did the God of the Bible not make his message that simple? I know the answer: because the God of the Bible is not the God of the Universe.
If the verse is supposed to mean Mary, why doesn't the verse say "Mary" instead of "Joseph"? Why would words that say something actually mean something quite different; something we would like it to say, not what it actually says? Why are these words not changed in all the translations of the Bible to say Mary instead of Joseph? It would make the Bible much easier to understand.
(2) Matthew 1: 17 So all the generations from Abraham to David [are] fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon [are] fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ [are] fourteen generations.
Since anyone can figure from the above verse that there are 42 generations, and it states "so ..." this means this verse is a lie because it is referring to the verses before it -- there are only 41 generations. The excuse about not listing every consecutive progenitor is a cop out -- it does not make this lie a truth.
(3) The comment in the letter "not uncommon to invoke women in genealogy" is puzzling to me -- then you would expect Mary to be mentioned instead of Joseph in Luke, if that were true.
(4) Another thing that is puzzling: If you assume a virgin birth why would Joseph’s genealogy be even mentioned? Joseph would have no blood relationship with Jesus. The old testament emphasizes that it must be a blood relationship for the messiah.
Look again at the table of genealogies -- look more closely at the problems presented. Of the hundreds of flaws and contradictions in the bible, this alone clearly shows that the bible is errant.
(5) Your letter refers to a number of books and authors that can explain the genealogy problems better than you can. You do not have to appeal to other so-called experts of the bible. It is just a simple matter of reading the bible the way it is. What the bible says is plain for all to see. As long as words mean what they say, there is no problem. If they mean something else then what you read, then this means the God of the bible is a deceiver; otherwise all translations would have reflected what this god really meant. As soon a you need experts to explain God’s supposedly simple message to mankind, then it is not God’s word to mankind -- it is something else.
(6) Your letter mentions "God’s words". The good news is that: the assumption that the bible is divine is not necessary. Who told you it was divine other than the bible itself? (The Koran says it is divine too - is it?) If you do not believe the bible is divine then you do not assume the existence of Sin, you do not assume the fall of mankind, you do not assume the wrath of God and divine judgment, you do not assume Christ's sacrificial atonement means anything -- it doesn't if you don't assume the divinity of the Bible.
From my reading of the bible I have concluded it is not a message from the God of the Universe (I have similarly concluded about the Koran, and the Books of Mormon). My rejection of the Bible as God of the Universe’s message to mankind was not based on any disillusionment in God or any other relationship, but was a result of studying the Bible in order to clarify what it really says. The rejection came because of the Bible’s flaws, contradictions, and it’s immoral, and unscientific stance.
So, when you refer to God and God’s word you are assuming the God of the bible and the bible - I do not. I do not accuse God of error when I maintain the deception of the bible because the God of the Bible is not the God of the Universe. Neither is the God of the Koran or the God of the Books of Mormon.
See my criteria of "Holy Books"