I want to tackle a simple “contradiction” that some people seem to think exists in the Bible. As you know, I believe that the Word of God, the Bible, is inspired by God (as the Scriptures teach, and history has proven). Anytime a person says, “I have found a contradiction in the Bible” be very careful. That person has probably taken his/her information from another person and neither one of them has actually studied the source, the Bible. There are many, many so called “contradictions” in the Bible that can easily be disproved by a little inductive study of the text. Others require that you have a knowledge of the cultural context of Biblical times. If you really want to know how to study any passage of the Bible, both simple and difficult ones, then I would recommend that you learn the Inductive Bible study method. A great tool to teach this method is “How to study the Bible” by Kay Arthur.
Anyway, a common “contradiction” that I come across is, “who is Joseph’s father, as described in the Bible?”. This is both easy and hard at the same time because there are 2 simple passages that show the genealogy of Christ and reveal who Joseph’s father is. I will paste the 2 passages and then explain why there seems to be a contradiction to the 21st Century American.
The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram, and Ram the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of David the king.
And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asaph, and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah, and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah, and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.
And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, and Abiud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor, and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud, and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.
So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations. (Matthew 1)
The purpose of the Gospel of Matthew is to present Jesus as the King of Israel through the lineage of David. Joseph is from the house of David which makes his Son, Jesus, the rightful heir to the throne of David. Joseph’s father is called Jacob in the text. So from Matthew, we learn that Jesus is of the house of David on His earthly father’s side and the father of Joseph is Jacob.
Now, let’s take a look at Dr. Luke’s Gospel. Luke was a well educated Greek doctor so he decided to use his acquired research skills to lay out the chronological biography of Christ’s life (the humanity of Christ). Here is his genealogy of Christ.
Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3)
You may have noticed that Luke says Joseph’s father was Heli. So the question is, who was Joseph’s father, Jacob or Heli? Remember, Luke is researching the life of Christ so he would have chosen to look at public or family records. During those days in the land of Israel, the women were placed under the protection of their fathers until they married and then upon marriage, they were placed under the protection of their husbands. Today, for instance, in many Middle Eastern countries, women are placed in the passports of the fathers until marriage and then in the passports of their husbands upon marriage. On paper, it looks like the women do not exist and when searching for their documents you have to look under the name of the father or the husband. That is what life was like during Joseph and Mary’s days. Mary would have been placed under the name of her husband so when looking to see who the father of Mary was, you would have to look under Joseph’s name, hence Joseph appears (on paper) to have two fathers. Heli is the father of Mary. So, Luke presents Christ’s heritage through His mother Mary, back to David. Jesus is the rightful ruler of the throne of David, both from His mother’s side and His earthly father’s side.
As you can see, there is no contradiction in the Bible. Joseph has one father and his name is Jacob. Heli is Joseph’s father-in-law. So those who claim that the Bible contradicts itself by saying that Joseph has 2 different fathers, are wrong and they prove that they do not study the Bible and do not understand the cultural context of the Bible. I hope that this has been helpful to you.
Erik and Elena Brewer's Weblog 
Once you truly, truly, believe something, especially something of religious nature, no evidence to the contrary will ever be relevant. In this case for example, you are doing your best to force fit this inconsistency with the preconceived belief that the text is inspired, infallible, and 100% accurate. You may be right that Luke’s genealogy is Mary’s but it doesn’t say that in the text even though it could easily have. I find it hard to buy the “Luke was doing research” argument because the text is considered 100% inspired by God. So God is somehow trying to confuse would-be Christians some 2000 years after the text was written.
And that’s not the only confusion in the text. One account has Jesus born in the reign of King Herod, another has him born during the Census. Historical record show that Herod died 10 years before the census. The simple explanation is probably something along the lines of “since these text were written decades after the events they depict and were not eyewitness accounts, they couldn’t possible have been 100% accurate.” But once we accept the text as inspired and accurate, we have to make excuses for the errors and contradictions that are very obvious if we read it critically.
I really enjoy having these debates with you. I think people who take the bible as literally as you do are rare these days.
Edosa,
Take a look at what Luke says, in his own words.
As far as the census goes, I would recommend that you read this. I will not reinvent the wheel.
That’s my point exactly. You are basing the authenticity of the text based on what the text says. So your point is that Luke’s writing is true because he says so. What other texts do you validate in this manner? If I had to guess, I’d say none other than the bible.
On the issue of the discrepancy between Matthew’s and Luke’s placement of the year Jesus was born, only the Church is still desperately trying to reconcile the 10-year gap between both accounts. The year of the census in approximately known (6 or 7 CE) and King Herod died in 4 BCE. Only if you’ve already accepted the infallibility of the text can you ignore all the inconsistencies.
I know there’s no convincing you otherwise (that’s what faith is all about) but I enjoy the debates. There are a whole bunch of inconsistencies and outright immoralities in the bible, that’s why it takes faith (a lot of faith) to believe it as an infallible and accurate word of a loving God.
No, that is not what faith is all about. True faith is not blind faith. You must understand what is meant by the word “faith”. It is the Greek word “pistis” which means totally convinced of what you see (i.e. the evidence). Biblical faith is not blind. When you see all that God has said (written) and done then the evidence is overwhelming, therefore, you are totally convinced of what you see.
Did you even read the argument set forth in the link that I sent to you? It has quotes from outside sources as well as from the Bible. Plus. there has already been a lot of scholarly info written about the the New T. as well as Christ, using outside sources as reference. I would encourage you to read Josh McDowell If you truly are interested in the debate on this subject. BTW. there is a lot of junk written about McDowell but it is all character attack, the facts that he presents, as far as I have researched, have not been refuted.
I have not been convinced (with a good argument) about any inconsistency (like the example of Joseph’s father). God shows humanity as it is (no sugar coating). When you refer to “immoralities” could you be more specific?
You seem very keen on denouncing the religions of others; I would like to ask, though, what are your own beliefs, if you reject the Bible and the God within? After all, this is a free-for-all debate, so why not discuss your own viewpoint?
Mary’s father was Joachim and her mother was Anne.
Actual problem with you my dear is that you haven’t read any scripture that is from the only one True God….. God never try to confuse anyone, nor He can be confused. Blessed are those who have faith in Him…. and for all others, there is weeping and groaning of teeth. Still there is time Edosa pray to Jesus Christ to give you powers to understand and differentiate what is right and wrong, what is from God and what is man made. Without Godly help you will never be able to find the truth. My prayers are for you.
Best proof of the Bible. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5pQvM9ZY41k
I think things like slavery, murder, human sacrifice are all immoral, Yet they all exist in the Bible and are approved by God. I think infinite torture for finite offences is immoral. I don’t think our society would agree if the punishment for stealing an apple from Wal-mart were life imprisonment but we accept such harsh punishment because it’s written in a very old book. So in some weird way we accept the fact that an all powerful, all knowing, all loving God can’t forgive anyone who’s wronged him without bloodshed of some kind. We accept that the best solution an all powerful and all knowing God could come up with when dealing with the first insurrectionist in his kingdom (Satan) was to put him in the “perfect” garden he created for the creatures he claimed to love above all else. How did he think that was going to work out? Oh, never mind, he knows everything even before it happens. So the plan was never for Man to live in a garden. The plan was also never for satan to be an archangel (afterall, where did satan get the idea for insurrection in the first place?).
The idea that the bible is a moral book is absurd, that’s why it encourages that it is taught to kids before they have a good sense of what’s right and what’s wrong. I’ve noticed that most preachers today stay away from the obvious immoral parts of the bible. I remember listening to a message about Abraham being asked by God to sacrifice Issac. The preacher emphasized that Abraham obeyed God and was rewarded for it. He left out the part where Abraham actually bound his son and placed him on an altar, was about to slit his throat when God told him to stop. If you think there is any morality in that story then your whole argument that faith is based in evidence is absurd. It’s not moral to kill your child (never has, never will) whether or not some God is urging you to do it. That’s not to mention Jephthah’s daughter who was actually sacrificed (I guess that time God was too blood thirsty to pass her up).
I’d also like you to quote a part of scripture that condemns slavery, not something that’s part of some larger message that we have to understand by digging deeper into the context of other scripture. I just want a commandment, or even opinion where someone in the bible says something like “thou shalt not enslave another human” or “you have heard it said before ‘thou shall enslave another’ but I say unto you ‘whoever shall enslave another shall be doomed to eternal damnation.” So far I haven’t found anything like that. I have found actual steps on enslaving other people, how long you can enslave them. Later in the bible, it says slaves are expected to love their masters, but never expects the masters to let the slaves free. Interesting.
I agree that they all exist in the Bible because God does not sugar coat the depravity of man, but I must disagree that God “approves” of them. For example, I have written on slavery here and it is clear that the Bible does not promote slavery, especially the type of slavery that existed among the Africans during the 16th – 19th Centuries in the America. Murder is wrong and I am afraid that you are confusing “crime” with “punishment” Human sacrifice is never approved by God. (Abraham never sacrificed Isaac) .
Infinite torture was never the plan for mankind (Satan and his angels committed the actions worthy of torture, and they have no 2nd chance). Mankind made/makes his own choice to disobey. The good news is that we have a 2nd chance. God sacrificed Himself so that we could be redeemed. What greater effort has even been conceived?
Life in prison for stealing an apple, that is not found in the Good Book. In fact the whole idea of prison is not found in the Bible (as a teaching of God) Imprisonment is a practice of the Romans that, unfortunately, our Western culture has adopted. In the Bible, restitution is made, the person is punished to fit the crime and then he is set free in society (takes the burden off the backs of the tax payers).
There is a standard for forgiveness, it is not free, as some seem to think. Forgiveness always costs somebody something (even if you remove the religious aspect).
God did not “put” Satan in the Garden, he was cast out of heaven. He had access to the Garden but that does not make God any less all knowing. Satan, even though a fallen angel, still has free will (he can act as he wishes). God limits his actions but he still does as he pleases (he cannot do all that he wants, i.e. Job, God set a hedge (spiritually speaking) around Job and his family and Satan could not overcome it, he tried)
The plan was for man to have an eternal, personal relationship with God. Man chose to throw all of that away. God made it possible again (He foreknew all of this and was not surprised by man’s disobedience, He had already prepared a way of redemption, before the foundation of the earth was set)
I still do not see any proof for your argument.
Again, no proof. Isaac went willingly. You seem to have the idea that Isaac was a very young boy. From the text, it seems that he is probably a teen. Abraham believed God above all else (this is the son whom God promised and if he were to die, that would mean that God broke His covenant and was to be killed like the animals in Gen. 15, I would encourage you to study the topic of Covenant.
Abraham had such faith in God that He had to keep His Word (the nation would come through Isaac) that he believed that God would raise Isaac from the dead on the spot, if Abraham were to kill him. He understood his God and the fact that God cannot break His Word. There is nothing “immoral” here.
I see you are a bit confused on Jephthah’s daughter. Who told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? Who told Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter? Who is at fault with Jephthah’s daughter, Jephthah who made the vow or God? Study up before you use these quotes that you get from other people. You fall in the same trap every single time.
From the article on slavery:
I’m not sure what you mean when you say something “was not God’s plan.” Can anything happen outside of God’s plan? If the answer to that is yes, then whoever makes those plans is more powerful than God (since such a being can throw a wrench in God’s plan). As for slavery, the law of God approved slavery: If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
The excuses you are giving don’t hold water to the hard truth in these passages. The old testament quotes are actually God talking. God felt it was ok to buy and sell slaves.
Infinite torture was ALWAYS the plan from the very beginning, otherwise God wouldn’t have created satan. What was he thinking when he made satan, remember he knows everything. So while he was creating satan, he knew this archangel will revolt against him, lead a rebellion, and have to be cast down to earth and screw things up for his next creation (man). To argue that this wasn’t God’s plan is just an excuse to make God not responsible for his creation. Where does the buck stop? The buck should stop at the throne of God, since he made everything. However, each time events show that God screwed up, we rationalize it away from God and put the blame squarely somewhere else. We can’t both do that and claim that this God is all knowing and all powerful and has a plan different from the way events turn out. It make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
The life in prison for stealing an apple analogy I was mentioning is about infinite punishment for finite crime. An all loving God is choosing to punish sinners FOREVER for finite sins they commit. The oldest a human can live is about 130 years. What possible crime can one commit in 130 years that warrants infinite torture? After 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 years of torture, can’t we assume the person has suffered enough for whatever she did in those 130 years they were alive? Infinite torture is IMMORAL, and there’s actually no love in infinite torture. That’s why the all loving God assertion is absurd.
I live in the Eastern European country of Moldova. It is the poorest country in Europe and because of this fact, many people are migrate workers all throughout Central and Western Europe. Many of the women move to Italy and work as care-givers for the elderly. They live in the homes, are fed and clothed, as well as paid, and they fare well with their bosses. This is exactly what was described as “slavery” among the Hebrews. Are these Moldovan women then slaves, according to our modern definition of the word? You see you are trying to interpret what was happening 3,000 years ago by today’s ideas and standards. You are totally missing the concept of cultural context and as a result, you are applying a modern interpretation (an incorrect one I might add) to a text that has its own cultural context. Do you understand what I am saying? Do you see why it is important to use the tools for interpreting literature? You can choose to accept what I am showing you or not. Again, the truth does not depend on whether you accept it or not, it will remain the truth even if you choose to accept a lie.
In the Hebrew society, a Hebrew could not buy another Hebrew outright. That Hebrew has to get into such debt that he sells himself to the creditors, and the Hebrew who bought him, was actually doing him a favor, helping them man who had lost everything “get back on his feet” as we would say today. Once back on his feet, he could choose to stay or go. Usually the master was so good to him that he chose to remain in the masters house as a servant. But I am sure these little details were foreign to you and you made your judgments without being well informed.
Look at what Paul wrote in I Timothy (I included the passage). He clearly states that he and God are both against those who own and sell slaves (this is where the heathen concept of slavery comes in, the way the Africans were treated in the 16-19th centuries. There are no contradictions in the two texts when you see things as they are in their proper contexts. Since you have not done that, YOU feel that there is contradiction even when the evidence proves you wrong.
A person who is in more debt than he can pay must work to pay it off. He is not free until he pays it off. We have this concept today. You run up a credit card bill then you must pay it off. You are a slave to the company until you pay off the debt. That is what the “slaves” were doing in Israel. Their debts were bought and they worked until they paid it off, or after 6 years, they were to be set “free” even if they had not paid off all their debt. God is way more noble than the modern credit system. Again, you see slave and automatically assume that it was like the slavery of the 17 – 19th centuries
The “slaves” were usually actually bondservants. They went into mad debt and then could have to work it off but were set free after 7 years even if they still owed. We see Jacob do a similar thing to gain a wife … worked off his dowry. 7 years for Leah though, 7 years for Rachel, and Leah was given to him by trickery.
The other way you could become a slave was if your people were conquered. Like, instead of being put to death.
Slave was also used in the Bible at times to describe servants.
Slavery was not like the African slave trade, just so you know…
You’re kidding, right? You couldn’t possibly believe what you just wrote. If your account is accurate, then why is the slave’s family held hostage by the master if he built the family while a slave? Why are the children born of these slaves also slaves themselves? If you read more of Exodus 21 you’ll find that God also explains how to sell your daughter into slavery. Yes, you can argue it’s not really slavery but some kind of migrant worker program, but I’m not aware of migrant workers who also have to double as sex slaves as well. Exodus 21 explains that if this “migrant worker” doesn’t sexually satisfy her boss, he is free to sell her to whomever he pleases. He is also allowed to give her to his son, or keep him to himself as long as he has sex with her as much as he does his other wives (so much for marriage ALWAYS being between one man and one woman). Come on! You and I know the bible is not talking about some migrant worker program. Are the Italians allowed to beat the Moldovan workers to a coma? In Exodus 21 the masters could strike these migrant workers as long as they didn’t die immediately. You know why? Because they “owned” them (Exodus 21:21). Please spare me the migrant worker crap.
What about infinite punishment for finite crime? Any thoughts about that? What about your idea that satan and man can thwart God’s plan? Would you like to reconsider?
What would I be kidding about? Deut 15 and Ex. 21 are cross-references. One adds details that the other leaves off. In Ex. 21, if the man comes as a servant (to pay off his debts) with his wife, also leaves with her. Verse 5 of Ex. 21 is explained in more detail in Deut 15. He is not forced to stay, he does so on his own free will. Again, you are overlooking the fact that this person has a debt to pay off. Today, modern creditors do not give you a place to stay and food to eat while you pay off your debts (God has more compassion than modern man, by far).
There is no mention of sexual relations here. She is displeasing as a servant. Plus, she was sold to pay off the debts of her father (the Hebrews actually owned their children, since they sheltered them, fed them, clothed them, educated them, etc). Also, there is no command to sell their children, people have free will, don’t forget. I would not recommend selling your children, but some people seem to think that it is the way to go (again, nowhere do we see that this is God’s desire)
If she is given to his son (as a wife) then the debts are forgiven (remember, she is there to work off a debt).
If the man does not want to treat her respectfully (according to God’s 3 conditions, you see God is looking out for her even though she has been sold by her own father) then he must let her go (debts forgiven).
If a man kills the worker, then he must pay (Scripture interprets Scripture, life for life). In verse 21, there is no mention of the worker dying (you are reading into what is not there). The idea is to keep watch over him for a couple of days, if he survives, then the master is to be set free (not held for crime) because the servant lives.
You really need to study these passages instead of cherry picking (what someone else told you).
Check out what Job says about God and His plans.
God’s plan of creating mankind to have a relationship with Him has not changed. He, God, left room for the possibility of evil to exists because He allows free will. He did not create evil. His plan was to have a personal relationship with mankind, man chose to sin and break that relationship. God was ready for that mistake because before the foundation of the world was set, He had already prepared for mankind’s sins to be forgiven and the relationship to be restored. Also, keep in mind that God is not limited by time (He experiences the past, present, and future all at the same time). We have to think in terms of beginning, before the beginning, present (here and now), future, etc. A finite mind cannot fully comprehend infinity. So, yes there is free will (but it does not surprise God). As far as eternal punishment, it was never created for mankind, yet mankind chose it by sinning (keep the blame where it belongs, on the one who takes the action). Plus, mankind has chance after chance while alive, to repent and escape the eternal punishment (again, do not blame God for man’s choice).
Forget the free will argument. Did Job have free will? Of course not. And the pinnacle of divine insults was when god sent new children to replace the ones that he allowed Satan to kill. If I killed your children would it be OK if I gave you new ones? How absurd. As far as living “outside of time” that is a croc. You say God exists. he did things in a sequential manner, that is on the first day, then on the second day, etc. That shows a time line. A sequence of events is proof that it is temporal.
“He left room for the possibility of evil to exist”, yet “He did not create evil?” So someone else has the ability to create? Who is this being? Was evil created with or without God’s approval? “His plan was to have a personal relationship with mankind, man chose to sin and break the relationship.” So you accept that man has the ability to change, or at least ruin, God’s plan?
The number of times mankind is warned about the impending eternal doom doesn’t take away from the fact that people are being punished eternally for crimes they commit over a maximum of 130 years. It also doesn’t matter whether or not eternal punishment was created for mankind either, the fact is that man is being eternally punished. You’re right a finite mind cannot fully comprehend infinity, that’s why it seems extremely unjust to punish someone forever for crimes committed during a length of time I can fully comprehend. I don’t think there is anything worse than eternal damnation (I can’t think of any).
Let us not forget that eternal damnation was created by God. He didn’t have to create it. He could have just forgiven everyone, or simply destroyed unbelievers once they died, leaving believers to enjoy eternity. But no, he creates this torture chamber to eternally torment people who didn’t believe in him during the very short period of time they lived physically. There’s no way to spin that as moral, just, or the product of love.
Leaving room for the possibility of evil and creating evil are 2 different things. God and evil are contrasts/opposite and have nothing in common. Mankind has not changed God’s plan. The possibility for mankind to have a personal relationship with God still stands. Mankind has a 2nd chance, but a choice also remains, even in the midst of the second chance. How could paradise be paradise if you are forced to be there?
God paid the ultimate price for mankind to avoid eternal condemnation. What sin could be worse than saying “thanks but no thanks”? That is worthy of eternal punishment.
Again, eternal damnation was created for Satan and his fallen angels, not mankind. Mankind has a 2nd chance and is without excuse. Should there be punishment for breaking the law (committing a crime, doing evil, etc.)?
‘
It is written he created all that exists. All that is was created by him. This includes, trees, birds, Hitler, viruses, black plague and on and on.
Here is your answer about God creating Evil. This will clear it all up for you. I promise. I used to wonder the same things.
This chapter explains it very well. No point in me rewriting it. You can read it in 10-15 min ❤️
https://media4.egwwritings.org/pdf/en_GC.pdf#page423
I absolutely agree that leaving room for the possibility of evil and creating evil are in fact two different things. Your admittance that God did not create evil, yet made room for its possibility implies that there is a creator of evil that God can do nothing about other than make contingency plans for. It’s kinda like taking an umbrella with you in the event that it rains. You can’t do anything to control weather, so the umbrella is a contingency plan should it rain. So whoever created evil is more powerful than God, since God’s plans have to take evil into consideration, yet evil doesn’t seem to take God into consideration.
You further prove the point of evil being more powerful than God by stating that “God paid the price for mankind to avoid eternal condemnation.” If God were the ultimate boss, who would he be paying a price to? However, based on your explanation, God has to pay a price to evil for our sins, otherwise evil (or its creator) would come to collect and there would be nothing God can do about it.
“Eternal damnation was created for Satan and his fallen angels, not mankind.” Who created eternal damnation? Seems there can only be two possible answers: 1.God. 2.Someone else. If the answer is God, and he is in fact the ultimate power above whom is no other, then God is choosing to eternally punish the very creatures he claims to love because he can’t bring himself to forgive the wrong they have done. That means he’s not all forgiving. If someone else created eternal damnation, then God has not choice but to see man get tortured forever because it’s not his call in the first place (this other more powerful being is calling the shots and making the rules).
I decided to go down this road with you because of your claim a few comments back that your faith is somehow grounded in evidence. Well here’s the evidence. Is there a different way to present it more logically?
There is no creator other than God.
Everything that is, was created by God. This does not mean that He “created” evil. He left room for evil by giving His creation free choice. He knew that evil would appear, but, He still allowed man to make the choice.
God is also a just God and everything that He does requires Him to act justly. Sin must be paid for, because it is injustice. Forgiveness is not “free” as some people tend to believe. Yes, God will forgive our sins but the price for sin must still be paid. God was willing to require the punishment (because He is just) and at the same time, pay the price for that penalty (that is why it is called grace, unmerited favor that you do not deserve, mercy, on the other hand, is not getting what you deserve). God is gracious with us as well as merciful. Yet, at the same time, He is just and demands payment/punishment for injustice. You can learn more about the character of God by studying the Names of God as revealed in the Bible.
No one is more powerful than God (study up on His Character and then take a look at human history, you will be amazed).
The lake of fire was also created by God as just punishment for Satan and His angels (read the story of what Satan attempted to do, along with 1/3 of the angels in heaven). It is a little more than just “unbelief”. God is just and He must require punishment for injustice. The lake of fire is the punishment (do not forget that man has been offered a 2nd chance and is valid as long as he is alive).
A just God requiring injustice to be punished cannot be immoral. It would be immoral if He did not punish injustice and just forgave unconditionally. All of God’s characteristics work together all at the same time (love, just, kind, merciful, gracious, all knowing, all powerful, etc.) You cannot divorce one aspect from the rest of them.
Allowing evil to be a choice is not the same as creating it 😉
I think you’re having a hard time explaining my “evil” question. If everything was made by God, according to the scripture you quoted, and you admit that evil is “something”, then God created evil. The logic is really not that complicated.
“Yes, God will forgive our sins but the price for sin must still be paid.” Who has to pay the price, and to whom MUST this price be paid? Based on your earlier posts, it sounds like your answer is man must pay the price for his sin. But to whom? God? If the payment for sin goes to God, then did God pay himself when Jesus died (since Jesus is God too)? Why does the payment have to be blood? Is God some kind of vampire? Can’t an all powerful God forgive without bloodshed?
Now I don’t mind the notion that sin must be punished, or that punishment must be eternal, or that there’s a way out for man’s eternal soul as long as he make amends while his very fragile and short-lived flesh is still alive. God is supposed to be infallible and gets to make all the rules. The problem I have is that Christians say all this on one hand, and then claim that the same God is all just, loving and caring. That’s where the contradiction lies. Eternal punishment for finite crime is not loving. It’s in fact extremely cruel. “Leaving room for evil,” when your all-knowing power tells you what will become of the evil you left room for, is bizarre, petty, and not well thought-out. Picking blood of all things as the price for your creation’s wrongdoing? It all just sounds like stuff medieval people thought up a long time ago to explain a world they didn’t really understand. Probably not. That would be the case if this whole assertion were taken from writings that date back thousands of years. Where did you come up with this explanation again?
Leaving room for evil and creating evil are 2 different things.
Mankind was to pay the price with death, to God, because mankind sinned against a perfect, just God. God stepped in and paid the price Himself. He met His own requirements.
That is the problem, man cannot make ammends for his crimes. There is nothing that man can do that would be able to apease God’s perfection and request for justice. Man’s “good” works are like filthy rags (literal translation, “used feminin napkins”) in the sight of God. God is the only One who is perfect enough to offer the “scapegoat” for the punishment of mankind’s sin.
When we sin, we sin against God (the eternal) and against mankind (also eternal). So, our sins are not finite, they are sins against the infinite.
So, you are against free will, the choice that man has?
Blood is the most precious thing that people have (the Bible claims that “life is in the blood”)
So man must pay for his sins. Hmmm! I thought Jesus paid for our sins. Evidently his check bounced. If I paid a debt for you why would you then be billed for the debt?
I guess you missed that Freshmen level literature class. Take that first, learn the basics, and then we can discuss more. Just want to share a few verses with you.
I do not see much of a teachable spirit in you but I will try and help you out anyway. To start off with, there are rules to interpreting literature that you can learn at any Freshman level college course. These rules can be applied to both secular and holy texts. For instance, in order to interpret Shakespeare, you have to consider the context of the words as well as the meaning of the words in the original (as used during the time of writing). If we take what is written in Isaiah in the context of the entire Bible, we learn that God is in control of all things. Nothing happens without Him allowing it, even the bad. That does not mean that He causes the bad. There is a difference between causing something to happen and allowing something to happen. So, that should be the frame of reference in interpreting what is written. If we look at the original Hebrew, the word translated into English as “creating”is bara, which means molding the parameters of something. God sets the parameters of calamity, or He allows it to happen and is in control of how bad the situation can become. No one can do anything bad unless He allows it to happen. This does not mean that He creates the bad, He allows it to happen, like I have stated in an earlier response. These simple skills need to be applied whenever you want to interpret a passage. Quote mining is intellectually dishonest and I would advise you to stop.
Thanks for confirming my point that you can’t explain the difference between leaving room for evil and creating evil.
You also are failing quite miserably explaining why an all-loving God requires death of his creation at the first case of wrongdoing.
“God is the only One who is perfect enough to offer the “scapegoat” for the punishment of mankind’s sin.”
While you are so beholden to God for providing the “scapegoat,” I am asking why a scapegoat is necessary in the first place. You don’t seem to be able to answer that either.
Your final statement above makes me think you are beginning to think about things from a different perspective. You said “(the Bible claims that ‘life is in the blood’).” So you agree it’s a claim. That’s a start. It turns out the Bible’s claim is one of the easiest to refute. There are more living things on our planet that do not have blood than those that do have blood. So life is not in the blood after all.
As for the free will argument, being for or against it is irrelevant. However, creating free-willed beings with curious minds, placing them in a garden to explore, and telling them not to eat some fruit (punishable by death), leaving said free-willed beings with a known insurrectionist who had caused a third of your angels to revolt against you (even though they knew all along you were all powerful and the plan would probably not work since you knew about it even before they planned it), and hoping these free-willed beings will be able to resist their innate curiosities and resist eating this fruit. I’d be amazed if you can come up with a worse plan than that.
What do you mean? I did explain the difference.
God is all-loving and just at the same time. You cannot divorce the 2 qualities. He is both at the same time and acts according to both natures. He must punish sin, yet He is loving enough to step in and be punished in our place. If that is not love then I do not know what is.
If God is just then every form of sin must be punished. Since you seem to avoid the just factor in the process, the rest does not make sense.
If you remove blood then there is not life. The word “life” in Hebrew is used differently than our modern word for “life”. In fact, according to the Bible, something without blood is not “alive” (again, in the Biblical sense, not the modern classification). Look at all the things that blood does. If you remove it then there is not life in the human.
God does not have to “hope” because He knows the beginning and the end all at the same “time”.
I would say that God didn’t create evil–evil comes from us choosing something other than God and God’s ways. In a way, it’s the absence of God that makes evil. Edosa, you need to simmer on down!
I’ve gone back and re-read your comments and still can’t find where you explained how creating evil and leaving room for it are two different things. Sounds like she either created evil, or allowed someone else to create it. Either way, evil came to exist with God’s permission, making her ultimately responsible.
I never asserted that love and justice cannot coexist. I’m saying that eternal punishment for finite crime is neither loving nor just.
Based on my and your last paragraphs of our previous comments, I don’t think you see the obvious contradiction of your claim.
Since “God does not have to “hope” because He knows the beginning and the end all at the same “time”,” then it means he knew even before he made Lucifer that the angel wasn’t going to be any good. He knew all the angels Lucifer was going to deceive to join the opposition. He knew Lucifer would end up right there in the garden to tempt the creation he was most proud of. He also knew the creation would fall for the temptation. Despite knowing all this, he went along with the plan. So there are only two assumptions we can make based on the evidence above: either god’s plan from the beginning was to create a world where he and evil (through lucifer) would contend for the souls of mankind till the end of time, or lucifer crapped on god’s plan, leaving him to make a contingency plan in the form of jesus. Which one is it?
As I have explained earlier, there is no such thing as a finite crime because when you sin, you sin against God first and foremost (an infinite being) as well as against people (either others or your self) which are also infinite beings.
That would be the whole free will argument again. God knew all that would happen yet He still allowed man and the angels to have free will.
If God would not have allowed free will then you would be complaining about why we are not able to choose (actually, you would not know the difference, but that is another story). Having said that, love is not really love if it is forced, i.e. you are forced to love instead of choosing to love.
So you’re saying that infinite torture is justified because humans sinned against an eternal god? Based on that system, if I steal from a two-year old or an 80-year old, my time in jail should be drastically different, since the 2-year old has more years to live than the 80 year old. Makes no sense. The punishment should fit the crime, not the prosecutor. There’s no way infinite punishment can ever fit finite crime. It’s infinitely unjust.
I’d like to analyze the free-will argument for a little bit. How free is this will after all? You claim we are eternal beings with free will, yet we have no say in our supposed creation (God just makes us and forces us into a body). We also don’t seem to carry free will beyond the grave (people in heaven or hell are not free to leave either location). So for eternal beings that you claim we are, the period of free will is infinitesimally small in comparison to length of time we are deprived of free will. We are being forced. We’re forced to exist, forced to choose between god and the devil, and then forced to confine our souls to one or the other for eternity after we die. What if after 999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999, 999,999,999, 999, 999 years worshiping god in heaven one were to get tired of the routine? Can one free-will herself out of existence then?
Sin is not a finite act because it is against the infinite (eternal). The punishment has to match the crime (infinite vs. infinite). Plus, you have the choice of sinning in the first place and then God offers a second chance (that is mercy because He could have left it at “1 strike and you are out” but He did not).
You are trying to compare finite punishment with infinite. The punishment that is rendered on this earth is not enough to pay for the crime. (sin against the infinite/eternal). You are comparing apples to oranges again.
Infinite punishment for an infinite crime is correct.
As for free will, you have the free will to choose the action but God supplies the consequences.
Here are a very few false assumptions that you make (based, I’m sure on your belief in Darwinian evolution)
People who lived in antiquity are primitive, not as smart as we are today. Through the process of evolution, we are somehow “smarter” today than in the past. Keep in mind, there are some ancient civilizations that used technology that we still cannot reproduce.
Sin actually (in the original language) means missing the mark. God has established the mark and history affirms it. Murder is a sin. All civilizations of all times condemn murder. Stealing is a sin. All societies condemn stealing. The list goes on and on. These are considered sins in our modern world, even if you do not use the term “sin”. Instead, call it breaking the law if you will. You have missed the mark of the law.
There is no such thing as “my version of God”. I did not make Him up. I discovered Him as He revealed Himself in a couple of different ways:
His Word, the Bible
His involvement in human history
Direct involvement in my own life
Do you choose what you wear, eat, watch, listen to etc., where you go, when you go, how you travel etc. ? If you lie, do you do it out of ignorance, accidental, choice?
Claims that are proven in history are a fact.
Why in the world would I want to block you? You are a doubter who seems to be searching. I was once there and someone helped me. I would like to do the same thing for you.
I think you have confused Christianity with Islam. Biblical Christianity offers hope to people, connects them with God through Jesus Christ and teaches/enables us to love one another as Christ loves us. Obviously, you do not understand what genuine Christianity is or have never seen it in action. It is a powerful thing bringing hope, reconciliation, forgiveness, healing etc. to all who embrace it. You will never put an end to the Church,. In fact, it has already been stated that the gates of Hades cannot stand against the Church (genuine, Biblical Christianity).
Your hatred for religion is understandable. God hates religion because it is man’s feeble attempt at reconnecting with God. God desires a relationship with humanity and it is only possible through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Once again, simple law of interpreting literature would benefit you greatly my friend. Do you know the difference between civil/ceremonial laws and moral laws? A moral law would be “do not murder”. A civil or ceremonial law would be “do not eat pork, shellfish, keep the Sabbath etc.” Jesus teaches us that He is the fulfillment of the civil and ceremonial laws. Those laws were just a shadow of the real thing to come, Jesus Christ. Those laws were to lead/point people to Christ. I am sorry that you do not know these basic teachings of the Bible. That may be why there is so much animosity in you. You need to go to the source yourself instead of taking what other people say about God and the Bible at face value. It shows that you have been deceived. The Bible warns of that very thing over and over again. You are not the first and you will not be the last. Things are only going to get worse (predicted in the Bible almost 2,000 years ago).
There is no such thing as “your version” of God or “my version” of God. There is God. If you have your own version then it is a false god and the world is full of them and has been since the fall of mankind in sin.
The Bible explains who God is. We have already established that you do not know the basics of the Bible so therefore, I conclude, you do have your own version of god.
Being able to make a decision is a case in itself for free will, case closed.
According to the Bible, if you take life, then you pay with your life. The punishment fits the crime. Do you think that the punishment should not fit the crime? Should you punish the victim twice by not punishing the criminal appropriately? Do you even think these arguments of your s through or just cut and paste from somewhere else?
It does not take a genius to figure out that there is a lot of hopelessness in the world. It exists in every corner of the planet (corner is a figure of speech . . . oh never mind, you missed the laws of composition classes).
Do you know the definition of the word religion? Do you understand the implications of the word? God teaches us and demonstrates to us very clearly that we cannot earn our way to Him. We cannot come to Him without His help. Religion is man’s feeble attempt to approach God. Christianity is God coming to man to reconnect with him. There is a huge difference between the two ideas. I wish you could grasp that but . . .
There are about 300 Old T. prophecies that predict the First coming of the Messiah (Jesus Christ). The birth and life of Christ fulfilled all 300 of them. Many of them were not under His ability to do. For example, His birth parents and His birth location were not under His control (the fact that He would be born to a virgin, living in Israel, in Bethlehem). He also had to be a male and in the lineage of King David. The fact that One man fulfilled all of these prophecies is amazing. The probability of one person being born in the right place to the right parents and doing what He did on this earth is numerically impossible to calculate. Things that happened to Him on the cross (the cross itself is fulfilled prophecy) which were not under His control, fulfill Psalm 22 in detail (written well before Jesus’ birth, when no one in Israel knew anything about crucifixion, Psalm 22 is like an eyewitness standing next to the trial and crucifixion, explaining what was happening).
People do create their own version of god, we have covered this in the “religion” vs. relationship section. Do you comprehend what I write? Do you actually read it?
What part of “you have a choice” do you not understand from the previous passage?
Homosexuals, like all other sinners will experience death. This is how we know that we are all sinners, because we will all die one day. Should we kill homosexuals for being homosexual?of course not! The Bible teaches that homosexuals, like all other sinners, can be forgiven transformed.
In no way does the Bible condone rape. The Bible teaches that the rapist is to pay with his life. Again you really need to study this on your own instead of taking someone else’s opinion. You never refuted the prophecies you just keep spinning to avoid them and that’s okay I understand. That is the classic tactic of a person has no argument. Again Dr. Luke was a scholar he knew what he was doing and the evidence that he put forth could have been researched by others and disproved. No one did because no one could disapprove what he wrote.
Does the Bible condone rape? | Erik and Elena Brewer’s Weblog
“Sin is not a finite act because it is against the infinite (eternal).” What does that even mean? If I steal an apple today, how is that an infinite crime? The claim that the crime is against an eternal god has no bearing on the crime. Stealing an apple is one crime that takes place at one point in time. It’s not eternal. Even if one were to begin sinning the moment one comes out of the womb till the day he/she dies 100 years later, that’s still only 100 years of sin. Far from infinite. I think the general assertion of the bible is that we don’t sin after we die, we are judged after death.
I really don’t have an opinion on whether or not earthly punishment is sufficient for earthly crimes; that’s a different debate. I’m saying that year after year after year of punishment in hell which never ends does not fit crimes that only lasted a maximum of 130 years (if one were to live that long). I understand that according to the bible, God is king and makes the rules, while we are but clay in his hands. My problem is with calling the system just and loving. It clearly isn’t, even by our flawed earthly moral standards. Think about the bible’s description of hell. Think about eternity. Compare eternity to the years we live (note that compared to infinity, the time spent on earth reduces to zero). Now consider the duration of the punishment to the duration of the crime. What the bible god is saying is this: “For the first 130 years of your life you did things you shouldn’t have and they hurt me. I gave you multiple chances to fix this during that period but you didn’t. As a result, I am going to torture you FOREVER. I’m done giving you chances to fix the problem. And I’m not going to change my mind about the punishment either. You may feel sorry now for what you’ve done, but I don’t care anymore. The flesh that your soul inhabited is now dead so I don’t care about how you feel now about what you did then. You will be tortured FOREVER. If you apology had come before that fleshy housing for your soul died, I’d reconsider your punishment. Alas, it came after the flesh had died, so you will burn. You will burn hard. Just when you think the burning is about to end, remember it last FOREVER so it’s like day one of the torture comparatively speaking.”
Now, I don’t want to go into why you believe this as true, but I do have a problem with you calling it all just and all loving.
How about incest. It is allowed per bible and you call it God’s word:
Old Testament Examples
There are several clear cases of incest in the Old Testament. Lot, Abraham’s nephew, begat two sons by his own daughters while in a drunken stupor (Genesis 19:30-35). Moses recorded the sordid act as a matter of history, but there is no sanction of the sin in the sacred text. In fact it is placed in a decidedly negative light. Ruben was intimate with Bilhah, his father’s concubine (Genesis 35:22) — a shameful act that was condemned and penalized (Genesis 49:4). Amnon, one of David’s sons, committed incest/rape against his half-sister, Tamar (2 Samuel 13:7-14), and, as a consequence, was murdered later by the order of Absalom, Tamar’s full brother (2 Samuel 13).
Incest is condemned in the Bible. There are people who chose to ignore God’s command and practice it. That does not deny the fact that God condemned it. Also, Lot’s situation happened before the Law was given (which condemned incest).
We see the consequences of the incest that was practiced after the Law was given (death).
Evidence man, not just empty words. If you make a claim, back it up please.
Where does the Bible teach that incest is okay (other than in the beginning, in Genesis, before the giving of the Law that outlawed incest). I want proof not just flimsy, general assertions. There is not once single contradiction in the Bible. I am open to seeing your list (cut and pasted from another site, I am sure). Just know, I have an entire section of articles on the supposed contradictions in the Bible.
Incest was not a sin until the Law was given. It was not a genetics problem then either. The first two people were perfect. Their genetic code was modified once they sinned and they passed that on to their children. The children were much closer to the perfect source at that time. Today, incest is a sin, against the law, and a genetic mistake because we are 6,000 years removed from the perfect genetic code. Please think through your arguments instead of just regurgitating what you heard someone else say or write.
Moral laws have been around since the beginning because those laws were given by a lawgiver. The one who gives the law also decides what is right and what is wrong. Human history has proven why God said some things are right and somethings are wrong. What is not tangible about do not murder do not steal do not commit adultery do not lie?
Calling something wrong and then allowing it to happen is not a contradiction. God says that murder is wrong but he allows it to happen he’s not contradicting himself. Your argument lacks logic.
You seem to be confusing the person of God with laws. Laws can change without changing the nature of God. He still remains unchanging. I have written many articles on this topic. Pay attention to what is supposedly called a contradiction and then see the facts. Your fallacy is a common one among critics. Instead of seeing what is actually there written in black and white, and then of course applying the laws of composition, you come to the text with preconceived ideas or you just quote mine based on what others haves said when they quote minded. The nature of God does not change. From the very beginning, God instituted blood sacrifice to cover the sins of mankind. The animal was not sufficient to cleanse sin, just cover it up. The ultimate plan was to send the perfect sacrifice, Jesus Christ. Until the time of Christ, about 4,000 years passed, with the animal being the substitute. When Christ came, He replaced the substitute. There was a change in the law, from animal sacrifice to the sacrifice of Christ. There is no contradiction because of that change and the nature of God does not change because His law changed. You do not seem to understand what a contradiction is. Please read the section of articles on supposed contradictions in the Bible
I think because you jumped around so much, you missed many of my answers. Did you see the section on moral laws vs. civil and ceremonial laws? I have already explained mixing linens and eating shellfish, as well as pork. The moral laws are universal and demonstrate the Law-giver.
Nope, Numbers and Deuteronomy teach that the soldiers could take the widows of the fallen men as their wives, not rape them. Read the article about the Bible and rape because in it, I use the laws of composition to explain. There is one case of rape in the passage and the rapist is punished with death. You really should read this stuff instead of cutting and pasting what other people “claim”.
Under the theocracy of the Old Testament, yes, homosexuals were to be put to death, just as adulterers, fornicators, murderers etc. As opposed to our society, where murderers get a slap on the wrist and innocent babies are slaughtered in their mothers’ wombs. Anyway, according to the New Testament, which clearly states that we are not under a theocracy anymore, homosexuals can be forgiven. They mark themselves, not only with the death penalty by their lifestyles, but also with eternal punishment, as do thieves, liars, murderers, adulterers, fornicators etc.
Have not twisted anything, just pointing out your fallacies.
Enjoy
That is the problem, I have answered all of your questions. You do not like the answers because they destroy your arguments so you just ignore them and add more, then come back to them later, demanding an answer, even though I have already given it. Either it’s a pathetic tactic on your part or there are deeper issues that you need to resolve. I assume that it is the first and hope that it is not the second.
Sin by definition is missing the mark. God has set the mark. Anything that deviates from His mark is a sin. For example, murder is a sin. Society throughout all of human history has recognized that murder is a sin. That is one example. I could go on and on but there is no need. You cannot get more tangible than “you shall not murder”.
As to prophecy, I gave you specific chapters and verses, such as, the way that the Messiah would die, the gender of the Messiah, the race of the Messiah, the country, the town, the circumstances of His birth etc. All of these things were written down before He was born. There are over 300 of them that you can check from the Old Testament, documented before the birth of Christ. He fulfilled each one of the 300 prophecies, some of which He would not have control over, such as, the way He would die, the fact that no bones would be broken, His gender, His ethnicity, His country of origin, His home town etc. That is tangible evidence. There are other prophecies as well. The fact that the Jewish race will always exist and be a distinct race of people, that was written long before the Babylonians tried to wipe them out, followed by the Greeks and then the Romans. Many years later, the Germans also tried. They are still here proving that God’s prophecy is still true. That is tangible evidence that you just simply ignore.
As to moral authority, “you shall not murder” is a universal law practiced on every continent of this planet. It has existed as a practice ever since God delivered it. A moral Law Giver gave a moral law that is practiced all over the world in every generation. It could not have “evolved” the exact same way in every nation among all people of the world. It had to have been given and it was. Again, we have tangible proof.
Secularism is on the rise because it is the mantra of the propaganda machines that we call public schools.
Genuine, Biblical Christianity does not harm countless people. It teaches and exemplifies love and respect. Secularism, on the other hand, is responsible for the murder of countless millions. Just see the communistic regimes of the 20th Century for your tangible proof.
You really should study up on history bro communism is the implementation of secularism.
Communism is the total secularization of a society. Having worked and lived in a communist country for 8 years I have seen just how secular communism is. Again it is the implementation of secularism. I seriously doubt you know much about communism other than what’s written in books.
I have written on the Bible and Communism. Again, you are not original in your thoughts. You are just cutting and pasting this stuff without doing the research yourself.
There is only one God and God has no partners (nor kids). The God that all the prophets believed in as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad is my God. Get a life and stop believing into Idols and start reading real staff. Adam was a bigger miracle and he was not called Son of God. Also Prophet Jesus was sent only to People of Israel and not to whole world. You remember, People of Israel were killing all the Prophets before Prophet Jesus. If you continue like this, then you should start writing another version of the bible, no one would be surprised, let’s call it EBV.
There is only 1 God, Elohim (the all powerful Creator God). According to the Hebrew language, the grammar, the word Elohim is singular, masculine, with a plural ending for more than 2 (Hebrew has two different plural forms, one for 2 things and another for more than 2 things). According to the definition of the word Elohim, God is singular (the One God) masculine plural, or what we designate as the theological term “trinity”. God is 3 in 1. The 3 persons of the Godhead are revealed, 1) God the Father (in Genesis 1), 2) God the Holy Spirit (again in Genesis 1), and 3) God the Son, Jesus Christ.
Of course, Erik, the Gospel of James declares Joachim as Mary’s father. So I gues it’s Mary who has two fathers, not Joseph.
Pingback: Who is the Father of Joseph - Are There Contradictions in the Bible 04 | Youth Apologetics Training
Hi pleas advise matthew 1 vs 16,,and the book of Genesis speaks about joseph,so how many joseph’s are the in the bible?
The entire concept of the Bible needs only to be examined in the first few chapters of Genesis. The introduction of sin by Eve eating off a magical tree and ushering it into the world. No sin, no need for Jesus on the cross or the entire New Testament. So, was man first created 6,000 years ago after God caste satan out of hell then let him in the garden where he puts his most prized creation and also sets a tree in the garden with them that will kill them. Not to mention, Eve wasn’t slightly startled by a talking walking snake. Moreover, why isn’t Satan punished instead of the brand new and obviously naive man? That’s like punishing a child for being molested by her much older and wiser uncle and letting him go free. Satan is not only not punished for tricking children (Adam and Eve) but he is given more power than he had before. He now has his own kingdom (hell), angels and he is omnipresent just like god and can be every where in time and space to cause trouble. Outside of the Bible, there are entire buildings, cities, bones, cave painting, hell even sex toys older than 6,000 years old. So, you either believe a book with no evidence of people being created 6,000 years ago, no magical trees or Satan to be seen or found, or you denounce your lying eyes for seeing all the physical evidence that is located all over the world that man was not created 6,000 years ago.
can we get any poof / pictures
Did you even read the article?
Except Mary’s father was Joachim and Luke traces the lineage back to David excepting through Solomon’s brother Nathan. The Messiah Ben David is specifically supposed to be of the lineage of David through SOLOMON…
furthermore, Matthew NOT Luke used maternal heritage (where noted) in his geneology; Luke used the father’s bloodline.
Furthermore, Matthew claimed 14 and 14 and 14 generations from Abraham to Jesus (and if you count and even include Abraham and Jesus as a generation, you get 14 and 14 and 13!
And compare that to the 57? Generations Luke lists… That’s over 300 years difference!
I’m not saying JESUS isn’t who he claimed to be, but these are Glaring inconsistencies between Matthew and Luke.
Why don’t I see my comment? Have I done something incorrect in trying to post it or does it not show up for another reason?
Never mind.
Are you forgetting that Jacob and Heli were actually cousins??
Ok… And…?
So your saying Joseph and Mary were cousins OK that’s fine. But your story sounds like an explanation to why there is a contradiction in the bible. But even with that being said there is no proof that heli was Mary’s father. You are assuming that because of how they used to operate
@moses, are you responding to my post or the original post? Forgive me but the thread is confusing.
I never said Joseph and Mary were cousins And that would be irrelevant information anyways to my point.
What contradiction? I explained the Isaiah passage and we have already determined that you do not understand the basics of the rules of composition. I have made no mistake, you, on the other hand, have made several. Please take your own advice.
In order to understand a passage, one must know something of the cultural context of the day. This applies to Shakespeare 101 as well. If you try to understand Shakespeare without any knowledge of his cultural context then you will be lost, ending with some really bizarre understandings of what is actually written. The same holds true for the Bible. Doctor Luke, a Gentile doctor who understood how to do research, studied all of the documents of the day dealing with the birth, life, and death of Christ. The culture of the day would have had Mary written under Joseph’s heritage, i.e. Mary’s father-in-law, Joseph’s father, would have been called her father. This is not a new phenomenon, I call my in-laws today, mom and dad. Are you not a free thinker? Would you not consider yourself open minded?
1) if Heli is Mary’s father, than who was Joachim?
2) why would Matthew or Luke not use the father’s father or the mother’s father for every generation? Why not be uniform?
Read the article, this is explained there.
I read the article. It is not explained there which is why I’m posting the question. What of Joachim?
I’m not saying Jesus isn’t who and what he claimed to be
My..confusion, if you will, is in the following “inconsistencies”
1) Matthew counts 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 from David to exile, and 14 from exile to Jesus. Even if you count Abraham and Jesus each as a generation, there is only 14-14-13.
Wasn’t Matthew an accountant? Tax collector anyway
2) Matthew accounts for 41 generations from Abraham to Jesus (states it’s 42), yet Luke accounts for 57? (I forget the # but much higher) generations from Abraham to Jesus.
That’s like over 300 years difference. I assume a father to son passes a generation.
4) within the actual lineage, Matthew lists Jesus grandfather as Jacob while Luke states Heli. Is Heli Greek for Jacob? (THIS was addressed in your article). Neither could be Joachim (Mary’s father). Matthew listed mothers heritage WHERE NOTED; Luke listed fathers bloodline (Luke did not mention when using mothers bloodline as Matthew did….why would that be?)…
4) furthermore, within this same lineage comparison, Matthew traces Jesus to David via Solomon where Luke traces to David via Nathan.
Messiah Ben David is supposed from David via Solomon
Even if postulating Messiah Ben Joseph, that should be from the tribe of Ephraim, which neither gospel states
I will stop there…
There are a few things that I need to point out in your points. Matthew does not point out 1 generation after the other. Sometimes he mentions father/son relationship as the direct genealogy. Other times he uses great-grandfather/ great-grandson as a generation. It is not a chronological genealogy, one generation after another. If you were to do the research yourself of each name instead of cutting and pasting someone’s talking points then you would know these things. As you can see, I have seen these incredibly weak arguments many times. Do the work yourself and you will not keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again. Matthew emphasizes the Davidic heritage of Christ.
Here is another thing that you missed. Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) is used in the pre Babylonian captivity line as well as in the post. He is used twice in other words, not by mistake. He lived through the Babylonian captivity. He was still alive after the Jews went “home”, although he stayed in Babylon. Since he is used twice, the numbers are 14, 14, and 14. I guess your cut and paste site missed that detail too. You can learn a lot if you just pay attention.
Luke was showing Mary’s genealogy, we have already stated that. Jesus is Messiah from both parents’ genealogies. David –> to Mary (Luke’s genealogy) David –> Joseph (Matthew). Again, you need to learn to pay attention.
Cut and paste? Maybe I should be flattered, but those are my own questions in my own words. Why would you be rude in your response anyways? I will not bother reading anymore. Sianara. And way to be a good witness… I’m sure you’ve made Hashem proud
Okay, I admit, I was a little harsh. I just get tired of these same arguments rehashed over and over again. If you did the work and came up with the conclusion, I commend you, even though you were wrong. I just found it odd that I have seen that same argument on about, I don’t know, 50 different sites that claim that the Bible has flaws. I apologize for reacting so strongly. I hope that you can forgive me.
Two different authors with two different audiences to prove the same point; Jesus has the right to be the Messiah via the lineage of David on both sides of His family tree.
Again, I’m not saying Jesus isn’t who or what he claimed to be, but how does showing a lineage traced to David through Nathan show any right to be Messiah? When messiah Ben David is supposed linked to David via Solomon?
He has the right to the throne of David from both genealogies. Some would argue that He does not have claim to the throne through Joseph because Joseph is not His biological father. In order to combat that argument, God used Mary’s lineage to trace Christ’s roots through her to David.
Once again, the laws of composition are missing from your ability to read and understand a passage 😉
You have not really made any points. When I point out your false logic you just run to another subject. When I point out the fallacy in your second subject, you return back to the first saying it again. You have proven that you do not know the laws of composition you do not understand the Greek language or the Hebrew language. You in the making faulty conclusions based on your lack of knowledge.
Ok I’ll give you a pass.
I am not cutting and pasting. I am not even making an argument.
I am posing an inquiry.
As far as Luke is concerned, What purpose does tracing Mary back to David serve, when that lineage does not run through Solomon? Again, messiah Ben David is supposed lineage from David via Solomon.
Joseph’s line comes from Solomon, but both trace back to David to fulfill prophecy.
I am only referring to Luke’s account here and I’m still unclear as to which prophesy is fulfilled by tracing a lineage to David via Nathan? Which prophesy is it?
The Messiah was to come from the line of David. One could argue, according to Joseph lineage, that Christ did not come (physically) from the line of David because Joseph is not His biological father. On his adopted father’s side, Joseph, Jesus has the right to the throne of David. So, foreseeing those who would argue that Jesus is not of the line of David since He is not Joseph’s biological father, God provides Mary’s line and traces it back to David. He has the right on both sides, His adopted father’s side and His biological mother’s side. What is not clear about that? A family tree has two sides, the mother’s and the father’s so God traces both sides back to David. He has Matthew do it through Joseph for the Jews and Luke do it through Mary for the Gentiles.
God reveals the meaning of Scripture to people through the Holy Spirit. Without God’s Holy Spirit, you do not understand the things of God. Now, in order to understand any piece of literature (including the Bible) there are tools. You need a basic understanding of the laws of composition. One of the best rules that you can follow when trying to understand literature is, “the rule of context is that context rules”. Most mistakes that people make when incorrectly interpreting literature is that they have no idea of the immediate context. Just by paying attention to the context, one can learn a lot. Secondly, cultural context is also very important. If I speak to a modern person living in the USA and I mention the word McDonald’s, I do not have to explain what McDonald’s is. If I were speaking to an American 150 years ago and I were to use the word McDonald’s, then I would have to explain what I meant. Cultural context matters. If you apply these two steps to interpreting literature, you will be much more accurate in attaining the original intent of the author.
So, your premise of “your” interpretation of the Bible, and “my” interpretation of the Bible demonstrates my point. There is no “mine” vs. “yours”. There is a proper interpretation vs. an improper one. Do you understand what I am trying to communicate with you?
Hold up there buddy, did you not read this comment? If you did, please reread it and pay closer attention.
that is the truth, no contradiction
WHew, Wow. I’ve been reading all this back and forth and it has made my head spin. Neither here nor there. Noone is right or necassarily wrong here.
God IS ALL LOVING AND ALL FORGIVING. There is no place called heaven or hell. There is a frame of mind so to speak.. there is a place our consciousness will be conscious. Hell is to be separate from God. Those that have not formed a relationship with God (Who is not a white man by the way, or a man at all)will be separated through their lack of love. Those who have formed a relationship with LOVE. (God is love) .. will be happy, joyful, worry free.. (this is heaven) Those that live a life of worry, stress, anxiety, greed, lust .. are far from Love (God) and will be separate from God, which will feel like HELL, is explained. Make sense?
To know love, you must be completely humble. You must be compassionate, well.. you must be like Christ Jesus.
God is not going to send anyone anywhere and punish them. It will be ourselves that punish ourselves, or live happily. Its our choice.
The bible is just a guide. It is written and explained the best way man could explain … but God is much too big to fit into a box, especially that man written box.
Love to all
The Bible is the very heart of God. It is His Word and He has bound Himself to It. He cannot break His Word or He will cease to exist. Please read the Gospel of John 1.
God moved men to write His Word. Although parts of It were written by men, the thoughts and ideas, in fact, every Word in the Bible came directly from God.
Also
The Bible is full of proof that the Word of God came directly from God.
you are incredibly deceived and following some secular, man-made interpretations of the Bible if you believe Heaven and Hell are not literal places where people will be spending eternity after they die. The Bible clearly states what Heaven and Hell are throughout and you are simply ignoring the blatancy of the scriptures if you’ve concluded otherwise. Furthermore, “Heaven” and “Hell” cannot be a “state of mind” while we live on Earth. Heaven is pain-free, confusion-free, sin-free, guilt-free etc. No matter how “close” you are to God while here on Earth or how determined you are to please him, you will still suffer in many ways and continue to sin throughout life. It is inevitable and unavoidable. It is impossible in our human form not to suffer or to sin. Sure, we can try our best not to sin and feel strong conviction, which is the Holy Spirit working in us, but it is impossible for any human being not to sin except for Jesus Christ while he was here on Earth, which is what made him worthy to pay the price for our sins in the first place. That is part of our human nature. You need to read your Bible and take it for what it is, not make up your own beliefs.
Eric,
You said
“God reveals the meaning of Scripture to people through the Holy Spirit”
..this is true, but interpretation is by the reader. We should never be told HOW to interpret the bible by another human being, nor should we ever tell someone else. God will reveal himself differently to everyone. Everyone’s journey to God is different, but the destination is the same.
If the bible is or was written by human beings then there is absolutely room for error. IT could be true that it is God inspired and God breathed… BUT, human’s wrote it and then shared it, transpired it, translated it hundreds of times. EVEN ONE small error can make a difference …
The ONLY REAL truth is Love. God is LOVE.. and if we know God (LOVE) we know truth.
We don’t need a book to explain that to us.
Please define what “love” is.
This goes full circle. Round and Round we go. I have read the gospel of John, thank you though.
“in fact, every Word in the Bible came directly from God.”
This is where you and people alike become so confused, because .. the above statement is your BELIEF.
Just because it is your BELIEF does not make it true. It makes true for you, but it does not make it truth.
… and you’ll say it IS TRUE because the bible said so…. well thats what I mean by going full circle.. everything you believe will be true for you because you believe it.. because you believe what you read. Which is fine. I have no disrespect for anyone’s belief system. In fact.. I think its wonderful you have such a strong belief, however it is simply that, a belief.
My definition for what love is – God is love. Love is God. Love is the Universal Law. The last law given by Jesus. In fact, when we all truly learn LOVE, we know God. Love is not romance. Love can not be descibed in words.
When we learn love, sin becomes almost impossible. (notice I say almost because we are human beings)
… and if the Word came directly from GOD, through men .. then why can man today not also hear God’s word and speak it? Or write it?
smartest comment I’ve read so far!
Pingback: Anyone Ever Feel They Wasted Their Life on Theism? - Religion and Spirituality -Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, God, Universe, Science, Spirituality, Faith, Evidence - Page 6 - City-Data Forum
If Heli is the father in law of Joseph,then who is Joachim?
THANKS ALOT. IT IS THE HOLY SPIRIT THAT GIVES YOU THIS KNOWLEDGE
One was marys father and one was joesphs father rather asking google where people make up their own research do your own research and you will find it being a clear contradiction
In context:
Mary was the daughter of Joseph’s father.
Joseph was not the son of Mary’s father.
If Heli is Mary’s father, Joseph is not Heli’s son.
But Luke says Joseph is Heli’s son.
That’s explained in the article.
Follow carefully: If Heli is Mary’s father, Joseph would not have been written as the son of Heli.
I am a Christian who read Critical Thinking and Practical Reasoning at the University of Ghana. I am also a Diploma holder in Theology and Church Planting. This same explanation has been given for so many times by my Pastors, my Lecturers at theological school, and have also heard Rev Zack also explain this issue the same way as you have. In fact, this is an ugly intellectual analysis. You guys only wanna make everything in the Bible right; but this particular one does not fit at all. Even common sense shouldn’t allow people to think this way. Are you preachers telling us that the Bible is full of EQUIVOCATIONS? If so then the bible can and should only be used by highly Christian intellectuals. But is the Bible too difficult to read and understand?
The Bible is inerrant and exactly correct. I agree that no contradictions exist in the Bible. My current position is there are four different gospels in some profound way. If one man has two fathers, then logically the man must have been born twice (born again).
The Word never said that Joseph was the SON of Heli.
The word SON was added to the text, you will not find it in the original Greek text.
Joseph was OF Heli. Mary’s father had no sons. Read Num27 and 36.
Mary had a father named Joseph and a husband named Joseph. Matthew is Mary’s genealogy.. it’s says right after that from Abraham to David is 14 generations.. From David to the carrying away is 14 generations. And from the carrying away to Christ is 14 generations. If Joseph isn’t the father of Mary in Matthew, then there’s only 13 generations from Babylon to Christ. Matthew 1 is simple a translation error.
I understand a little bit l see exactly where the contradiction would come from thank you for the clarification
Excellent. That’s why we must study to show ourselves approved unto God. Then we will not be ashamed. Thanks so much and God bless you and your ministry.
Thank you very much for the explanation. Has been very helpful.