Perceptions of God, Creationism and Evolution

[TrueMacedonian]

Tom's answers in another post about Bart Ehrman and his book Jesus, Interrupted.

Claim #1: Herod’s order to slaughter all children under two is not recorded anywhere else other than in Matthew.

Firstly, Ehrman would have to make the argument that Matthew’s account is not historically reliable, which no one has ever managed to do. Secondly, there are many examples of historical events which have only been recorded by one source, and yet they are accepted as historically reliable, for example, much of what we know about Alexander the Great.

Even so, the shocking nature of the slaughter of the innocents would make one think all historians would have recorded such an event. Even Josephus records atrocities committed by Herod against those he believed had ambitions of attaining his throne. Herod even murdered his two sons fearing they would overthrow him. History shows Herod was a paranoid ruler who was willing to do what was needed to maintain his position. If he had ordered the slaughter of all males under two years of age, it would have been well within his character. However, we must realise that Bethlehem was a small village. If the village only had a few hundred residents, as is ascertained, statistically this would make the number of males under the age of two around 20 – not exactly a big number in the scheme of things and certainly not the largest massacre in history.

But Herod's character and the amount of victims is not proof of this event. Where is the actual evidence that this event occurred? If we can consider the eye witness account of Matthew reliable (and no one has ever been able to demonstrate that it is not), we can accept his version of the events. But if we are looking for extra-Biblical sources, we can consider the following passage:

"When Augustus heard that Herod king of the Jews had ordered all the boys in Syria under the age of two years to be put to death and that the king's son was among those killed, he said, 'I'd rather be Herod's pig than Herod’s son.'" (Macrobius)

Unlike the account mentioned in the book of Matthew, Macrobius mentions the massacre taking place in Syria and combines the event with the murder of Herod's sons. Because Palestine was considered a Syrian province at the time, Macrobius could be referring to the vicinity of Bethlehem.

Tom got some of his research from a site similar to this here - http://www.ufaqs.com/wiki/en/ma/Mass...0Innocents.htm

Unfortunately many scholars have a problem with the account in Matthew about Herod committing infanticide.





As for the Macrobius quote that in itself is dubious as Maier states:




Was Herod a tyrant? Absolutely. Is the Macrobius source a worthy candidate to consider as evidence outside of the bible of this event happening? No. That is why Tom wanted to cover his tracks with this sentence:

"Secondly, there are many examples of historical events which have only been recorded by one source, and yet they are accepted as historically reliable, for example, much of what we know about Alexander the Great."

However unfortunate though Macrobius wrote this way after the times of Christ making it a very obscure and unreliable sentence.

Michael Molnar brings up another issue:

[TrueMacedonian]

Claim #2: There is no record of Caesar Augustus ever undertaking a census

This is where the critical thinker should be alerted to the fact that Ehrman is either incompetent or a complete liar. Caesar Augustus in fact authorized three censuses during his reign. How do we know this? The three census’ are listed in the Acts of Augustus, a list of what Augustus thought were the 35 greatest achievements of his reign. He was so proud of the censuses that he ranked them 9th on the list. The Acts of Augustus were placed on two bronze plaques outside of Augustus's mausoleum after he died (http://classics.mit.edu/Augustus/deeds.html).

Here's another scholar that has an issue with this census:






But as far as Ehrman is concerned his beef was really with Joseph, whose supposed ancestor was David, had picked up and left for Bethlehem for this census. And that's where we get into the ridiculous genealogy that Luke offers all the way back to Adam. Here again is what Ehrman said in the bottom of page 32-33;




Funny how it's only Luke who mentions this census and not the other gospels. Luke even says:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1&version=NIV

Luke 1

Introduction
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Luke is basically telling us that his sources are second or third hand accounts making his gospel pretty unreliable (as all the others).



(I will answer the other claims Tom posted as soon as I have more time.)

[Vangelovski]

TM,

Your response to Herod's order to kill the children was disappointing - I've read much better. You provide no reasons as to why it could not have happened other than the following four indirect assumptions:

1. Microbius wrote 400 years after the event - So what? Most of the ancient history we have today was written hundreds of years after the events took place. My example was Alexander the Great - the works we have about him were written between 300 and 600 years after he died, and yet you still consider those to be accurate.

2. Macrobius may have been "influenced" by Matthew's Gospel - So What? He was using an original source, which makes it even more credible! First you would have to prove Matthew's Gospel as unreliable, which NOONE has ever managed.

3. Herod's son was supposedly not related to the infant massacre - So What? How does that disprove the infant massacre happened? Further, no evidence as provided that Herod's son was not killed in the infant massacre.

4. It is highly dubious that Herod would order to death all children under two because his threat was from only those born on a specific day - Jesus' birth date was not known, that's why Herod ordered everyone under two to be killed - to make sure the job was done because he had no way of knowing exact dates, or even months.

On your second post, requoting Bart adds nothing to the argument. If you looked at which years Augustus called census' in, you will see that the timing is not a problem. In relation to the whole why go to Bethlehem, Bart is a disaster! I've already discussed the geneaologies, reqouting Bart's superficial look at them does not refute what I posted. Further information on the census and the need to travel to Bethlehem:

Luke 2:1 “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.”

Dr. John Elder notes that:

...archeological discoveries prove beyond doubt that regular enrollment of taxpayers was a feature of Roman rule and have shown that a census was taken every fourteen years. A large Egyptian papyrus, telling of an enrollment AD 174-175, refers to two previous enrollments, one in 160-161 and another in 146-147, at intervals of fourteen years. A much earlier papyrus, dated in the reign of Tiberius [14-37 AD] reports a man’s wife and dependents for enrollment and apparently has a reference to a tax roll compiled AD 20-21. Another shows an enrollment under Nero AD 62-63; another lists those exempt from the poll tax in the forty-first year of Augustus, who began his reign in 27 BC. Since Augustus records that he set about early in his reign to organize the empire, the first census may have been either 23-22 BC or in 9-8 BC; the latter would be the census to which the Gospel of Luke refers. (Elder, J. 1960. Prophets, Idols, and Diggers. Indianapolis/New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co., pp. 159-60).

Dr. Jack Finegan, professor of New Testament history and archaeology and director of the Palestine Institute of Archaeology at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, CA, writes:

The question has been raised whether the Romans would have instituted census and taxation procedures in Palestine while Herod the Great was ruling as king of the Jews. That they would not have hesitated to do so is suggested by comparison with Apamea on the Orontes in Syria. The autonomy of this city-state is shown by the fact that it minted its own coins, yet Quirinius himself had a census taken there. A gravestone found in Venice carries the inscription of a Roman officer named Q. Aemilius Secundus. He states that by order of P. Sulpicius Quirinius, whom he calls legatus Caesaris Syriae, he himself conducted a census of Apamea, a city-state of 117,000 citizens. As for Herod, Josephus reports that in the time when Saturninus and Volumnius were the presidents of Syria, Caesar Augustus demoted him from ‘friend’ (φίλος= amicus) to ‘subject.’ Saturninus was listed above as governor of Syria in 9-6 BC, and Volumnius was evidently associated with him. By comparison with Apamea and specially from the time of Herod’s demotion by Augustus, Palestine would scarcely be exempt from any census and taxation procedures the Romans wished to institute. (Finegan, J. 1964. Handbook of Biblical Chronology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, p. 237).

Luke 2:2 “(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)”

Archaeologist Dr. Clifford Wilson writes:

[Critics] challenged the Bible’s claim that Quirinius [the Latin spelling of Cyrenius] was governor of Syria at the time. He was governor at the time of the census fourteen years later, in AD 6, but, it turns out that he was also a high official in central Asia Minor in 8 BC, actually being in charge of the Army in Syria. It appears that he was able to repulse a local uprising that probably delayed the implementation of the poll tax in Syria for some time” (Wilson, C. 1980. Rocks, Relics and Biblical Reliability. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, p. 116).

Luke 2:3-5 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

Early in the twentieth century, a papyrus was discovered which contained an edict by G. Vibius Maximus, the Roman governor of Egypt, stating:

Since the enrollment by households is approaching, it is necessary to command all who for any reason are out of their own district to return to their own home, in order to perform the usual business of the taxation… (Cobern, C.M. 1929. The New Archeological Discoveries and their Bearing upon the New Testament. New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls, p. 47; Unger, M.F. 1962. Archaeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, p. 64).

The same papyrus also confirms Luke’s assertion that a man had to bring his family with him when he traveled to his place of ancestry in order to be properly counted by the Roman authorities (Lk. 2:5). The document reads:

I register Pakebkis, the son born to me and my wife, Taasies and Taopis in the 10th year of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator [Emperor], and request that the name of my aforesaid son Pakeb[k]is be entered on the list” (Boyd, R.T. 1991. World’s Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids, MI: World Publishing, p. 415).

This sheds light on why Joseph had to bring his highly pregnant wife along with him when he went to Bethlehem. Such discoveries caused the late George A. Barton, Ph.D., Professor of Biblical Literature and Semitic Languages at Bryn Mawr and former Director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem, to comment:

Luke’s statement, that Joseph went up from Nazareth to Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to enroll himself with Mary (Luke 2:4, 5), turns out to be in exact accord with the governmental regulations as we now know them from the papyri. (Barton, G.A. 1917. Archaeology and the Bible. Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union, p. 435).

An additional point is the fact that the word “enrollment” in the edict of G. Vibius Maximus is apographe in Greek (the universal language of the eastern half of the Roman Empire). This is exactly the word used in Lk. 2:2, translated “taxing,” not in the sense of taxation but in the sense of enrolling or registering for taxation (Unger 1962: 64, n. 17).

[George S.]

From what i have read mathew wrote that about the children about 80 years after the event.Well according to the bible it is in fullfillment of jerimiah prophecy & it took place as described in the bible.But people have a lot of questions as to why's & wherefores.Historically we don't have any evidence that it took place but on a biblical level it says it did.Take your pick.

[Vangelovski]

From what i have read mathew wrote that about the children about 80 years after the event.Well according to the bible it is in fullfillment of jerimiah prophecy & it took place as described in the bible.But people have a lot of questions as to why's & wherefores.Historically we don't have any evidence that it took place but on a biblical level it says it did.Take your pick.

What do you mean there is no evidence? It is mentioned in two documents - Matthew and Microbius.

People seem to automatically presuppose that the Bible has to be inaccurate, yet noone in the history of its existence has ever been able to disprove its claims. As archaeology and science advance, they have only managed to prove its claims rather than refute them. And yet people still consider it as unreliable.

If a scholar or scientist is a Christian, then he isn't reliable because he has Christian presuppositions! But an if a scholar or a scientist is an atheist, then all of a sudden they are credible and neutral! NONSENSE! Atheism is just as much of a religion as Christianity and atheists are just as passionate about their beliefs as Christians and atheists hold all their presuppositions just as anybody else does. The problem for atheists is that the evidence is overwhelmingly against them, which has been borne out in this thread where they have not been able to provide a shred of evidence in favour of evolution or against Christianity (other than uninformed and unsupported stories!).

[TrueMacedonian]

Claim #3: Matthew and Luke supposedly give different accounts of Jesus’ birth.

Here Bart has provided a superficial analysis of the two nativity accounts – directed largely at the uncritical mind. Let us look at the passages in question:

Luke 2:21-24, 39
And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called JESUS, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb. Now when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to the LORD"), and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, "A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.".... So when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth.

Matthew 2:14-15, 19-23
When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt I called My Son.".... But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, "Arise, take the young Child and His mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the young Child’s life are dead." Then he arose, took the young Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea instead of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being warned by God in a dream, he turned aside into the region of Galilee. And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, "He shall be called a Nazarene."

Here is a basic rundown of what happened, which becomes clear after a careful reading of the text (as opposed to Bart’s superficial reading, loaded with childhood Santa stories and assumptions).

Jesus was born in a manger (Luke 2:6-7), for there was nowhere else for them to stay. At that time, shepherds were told of the miraculous birth, and made haste to go see the Child (Luke 2:8-17). On the eighth day, Jesus was circumcised (Lk 2:21), and after forty days, he was brought to the Temple (Lk 2:22; Lev 12:1-4). After the sacrifices were completed, they returned to Nazareth (Lk 2:39).

After Jesus had been born (notice, Matthew doesn't specify how long after), the wise men came to Jerusalem following a star which they had seen in the East (Mt 2:1-2). Herod was curious about the time of the star's appearing (Mt 2:7). The wise men were sent to Bethlehem, which was the birthplace of the Child. It is assumed by many that they found Jesus there, but the text does not indicate such. We again read of the star, that it directed them to where He was. One should not think they needed the star to guide them on the five mile walk from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. Taking into account what Luke reveals about the brief time Joseph and Mary spent in Bethlehem, the star most probably guided the wise men to Nazareth, where Jesus was found in a house (Mt 2:11). Recall, while in Bethlehem, they were not at a house, but rather at an inn, and even in the barn of the inn.

Having worshipped Jesus, the wise men departed, but were instructed not to return to Herod (Mt 2:12). Likewise, Joseph was instructed to flee to Egypt with Mary and the Child, for Herod would seek His life (Mt 2:13). Herod, realizing he had been deceived by the wise men, decreed that all male children, age 2 and under in Bethlehem and its districts should be put to death (Mt 2:16). Herod used the timing of the star spoken of by the wise men to determine the age of the Child. It was possible that He was up to two years of age at the time of this decree. Furthermore, Herod understood that the Child was perhaps not in Bethlehem any longer, extending the scope of the decree to include regions around Bethlehem also.

Having left Nazareth (not Bethlehem), Joseph, Mary and Jesus remained in Egypt until word came from an angel of the Lord that Herod was dead (Mt 2:19-20). It appears that Joseph had originally thought they might settle in Judea, but knowing that Archelaus, Herod's son was reigning, and receiving a warning in a dream, he turned aside and returned to Nazareth, in Galilee. Thus, Jesus would be known as a Nazarene, for Nazareth would be His home town (Mt 2:23).

Forty days after His birth, Luke says Jesus was taken home to Nazareth. Perhaps as much as two years after His birth, Joseph was commanded to flee with the Child to Egypt. When the common errors that have been assumed by many are maintained (ie. that the shepherds and wise men were all at the manger scene on the night Jesus was born; that the wise men found Jesus in Bethlehem; etc.), then there appears to be contradiction. However, the two accounts provide different information about different parts of Jesus' infancy. When understood correctly, the accounts agree and compliment one another.

There is no contradiction.

Unfortunately for Tom the bible is loaded with contradictions. Especially concerning Jesus. Here's what I mean:

18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[f] because he will save his people from their sins.”

22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”).

24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Matthew 1:18-25

And now Lukes account:

Luke 2

The Birth of Jesus Foretold
1:26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”
29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[b] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”

38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.

The Birth of Jesus
2:1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.
4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.

8 And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9 An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10 But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. 11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. 12 This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

13 Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,

14 “Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”

15 When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”

16 So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. 17 When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, 18 and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. 19 But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. 20 The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.

21 On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived.

Luke 1:26-38, 2:1-21

Reading both these gospels shows us something very odd. And I'll break it down step by step.

Contradictions between Matthew and Luke

1) In Matthew's account an angel appears to Joseph, the husband of Mary, to convince him not to divorce Mary for she is carrying god's son.

Luke, who starts his gospel account by telling the reader that his gospel was researched , begins his investigative reporting one century late on the birth of John the Baptist (interestingly this account of John the baptist birth is missing in Matthew's gospel) and not Jesus. Eventually we find Mary visited by an angel telling her that she is to conceive god's child.

Both accounts are missing in each other's gospels. So which one is right? Who did the angel visit? Joseph or Mary?

2) In Matthew's account Joseph names the baby Jesus (1:25).

But in Luke's account the angel tells Mary that the name of gods child is to be Jesus (Luke 1:31).

So who named gods son? Joseph (Matthew 1:25) or the angel who visited Mary (Luke 1:31)?

Also the name Immanuel, found in Matthew 1:23, is missing in Luke. This in itself is a contradiction between the Old and New Testament but we won't go there just yet.

3) Matthew's account mentions wisemen, or magi, visiting baby Jesus(Matthew 2:1). Luke's gospel mentions shepherds, who were visited by an angel, visiting Jesus (2:8).

Matthew's account does not mention any shepherds. Luke's account does not mention any wisemen. So which one is right?

4) Luke mentions Augustus Caesar's census (Luke 2:1) but this is no where found in the Gospel according to Matthew. Also, Matthew writes about Herod's infanticide account (Matthew 2:13) which is missing in the Gospel according to Luke.

5) Matthew's account mentions a star in the sky after Jesus was born (Matthew 2:2) but this is missing in the Gospel according to Luke.

6) Luke writes of Jesus being placed in a manger after he was born (Luke 2:7). But, of course, this is missing in Matthew's book.


The Gospel's according to Mark and John do not cover the birth of Jesus.

[TrueMacedonian]

Tom wrote;

TM,

Your response to Herod's order to kill the children was disappointing - I've read much better. You provide no reasons as to why it could not have happened other than the following four indirect assumptions:

1. Microbius wrote 400 years after the event - So what? Most of the ancient history we have today was written hundreds of years after the events took place. My example was Alexander the Great - the works we have about him were written between 300 and 600 years after he died, and yet you still consider those to be accurate.

2. Macrobius may have been "influenced" by Matthew's Gospel - So What? He was using an original source, which makes it even more credible! First you would have to prove Matthew's Gospel as unreliable, which NOONE has ever managed.

3. Herod's son was supposedly not related to the infant massacre - So What? How does that disprove the infant massacre happened? Further, no evidence as provided that Herod's son was not killed in the infant massacre.

4. It is highly dubious that Herod would order to death all children under two because his threat was from only those born on a specific day - Jesus' birth date was not known, that's why Herod ordered everyone under two to be killed - to make sure the job was done because he had no way of knowing exact dates, or even months.

Tom, I figured you wouldn't agree with my refutation. However using Alexander as an example is a poor choice because Macrobius doesn't even mention the name Jesus in his account. What is Macrobius' source? Matthew? How can we establish this? And why is it that this is only mention in Matthew and not in any other gospel?

[Vangelovski]

TM,

You didn't refute any of my further information, you've only brought up new supposed contradictions!? Does this mean that you accept that Bart's claims that you originally posted are false? I can only assume so seeing as you have not provided anything further to my additional information and original refutations.

You keep suggesting there are contradictions, yet you don't understand that these are four independent testimonies, providing information on different aspects of Jesus' life, just like any four independent witnesses would in court. That does not equal a contradiction, it equals information on aspects not covered by the others!

If all four we exactly the same, then we wouldn't need four - we'd only need one.

Finally, why does Microbuis need to mention Jesus' name? The question was whether there was a massacre of infants by Herod, which is exactly what Microbuis reported on.

[Zarni]

For the love of God can someone lock down this thread and end it all for our god forsaken sakes

[Vangelovski]

For the love of God can someone lock down this thread and end it all for our god forsaken sakes

Why are you still reading the thread? If someone has a gun to your head and is forcing you to read it, blink twice and we'll organise a SWAT team.

[makedonin]

Contradictions between Matthew and Luke

TM, here is a ad hoc arguments as a quick notes.
Paul was most probably aware of such genealogies and traditions. Therefore he advised:

As I urged you when I went into Macedonia —remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith.
1 Timothy 1:3-4

Some say that the writer of Luke's gospel was accompanying Paul, which would make him ignoring Paul's directive when writing this genealogy.

However if Paul's advice is followed, big chunk of the Bible should be ignored: Gen.10, 1 Chr.1-9, Mt.1:1-17, Lk.3:23-36.

So, what would it be in the God's word? Ignore or not ignore?

Concerning the alleged genealogy through Mary, Luke 3:23 simply says " being as was thought the son of Joseph, the son of Heli". Of course Luke does not say that he agrees with this tradition.

Doesn’t the Talmud provide further proof that Mary’s genealogy can be identified within Luke’s list at verse 3:23? After all, some apologetic books mention this! In John Haley’s book Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, we see Mr. Haley make reference to the Jewish Talmud in support of the idea that the genealogy in Luke is that of "Mary the daughter of Heli." Mr. Haley writes:

"It is INDIRECTLY CONFIRMED [emphasis mine] by Jewish tradition. Lightfoot cites from the Talmudic writers concerning the pains of hell, the statement that Mary the daughter of Heli [sic] was seen in the infernal regions, suffering horrid tortures. This statement illustrates, not only the bitter animosity of the Jews toward the Christian religion, but also the fact that, according to received Jewish tradition, Mary was the daughter of Heli; [sic] hence, that it is her genealogy which we find in Luke." (John Haley, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, page 326.)

Notice that this assertion is without a citation to the Talmud, but instead admittedly references John Lightfoot’s (A.D. 1602-1675) four-hundred year old work Horae Hebraicae on Luke 3:23 ( i.e. A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica). After tracking down Lightfoot’s work, we discover an interesting but obfuscatory sentence before the actual reference:

"There is a discourse of a certain person who in his sleep saw the punishment of the damned. Amongst the rest which I would render thus, but shall willingly stand corrected if under a mistake;"

Now here’s the all important reference:

"He saw Mary the daughter of Heli amongst the shades. R. Lazar Ben Josah saith, that she hung by the glandules of her breasts. R. Josah Bar Haninah saith, that the great bar of hell's gate hung at her ear." (see: http://philologos.org/__eb-jl/luke03.htm ).

After that often quoted reference, Lightfoot says something that should draw visible caution flags, unfortunately though, such caution flags are almost never seen:

"If this be the true rendering of the words, which I have reason to believe it is, then thus far, at least, it agrees with our evangelist, that Mary was the daughter of Heli...." (Ibid.)

This is interesting because apologists like Mr. Haley base their assertion on Lightfoot’s admitted questionable assumption of the text. But lets now remove ourselves from secondary source information, and look at the Talmud itself.
According to the The Talmud of the Land of Israel we read:

"R. Eliezer bar Yos’e said that he saw Miriam, the daughter of 'LYBSLYM [Jastrow—the leeklike sprouts of onions], hanging the nipples of her breasts. R. Yost b. Hanina said, "The pin of the gate of Gehenna was fastened to her ear."
[Note of proper citation and credit: The Talmud of the Land of Israel, Vol. 20: "Hagigah and Moed Qatan." Tr. Jacob Neusner. University of Chicago Press, 1986 ISBN 0-226-57679-5. Passage: "L." Note: Tim Taylor of Errancy located this reference to make this example possible.]

Here, we discover that Professor Rabbi Neusner, the modern translator of this passage, has left the ALL important Hebrew word "LYBSLYM" untranslated. So the question still looms: does "LYBSLYM" translate to Heli/Eli?
As an aid in helping us answer this question, Rabbi Neusner cites in brackets "[ ]" professor Marcus Jastrow (Jastrow is a Rabbi of great respect and prestige in the Jewish community) as what appears to be a play on words (i.e. "Jastrow - the leeklike sprouts of onions"). Seeking clarification on this textual anomaly, the present writer contacted the academic department of the Jewish Theological Seminary with the intentions of speaking to the distinguished scholar of Rabbinics, Dr. David Kraemer, about the translation of "LYBSLYM." Dr. Kraemer response was:

"The term you ask about translates most simply into "the leaves of onions." The Hebrew words (and there are two words here) are 'alei betzalim. This is admittedly a very odd name, and it may well be a play on some other phrase. (The story itself suggests that something very odd is going on here.) There is nothing obvious that demands that we read this story as referring to Mary [of the New Testament], but it is not impossible." (E-mail correspondence 8/09/01).

While Dr. Kraemer does not entirely exclude the Talmudian passage from referencing the Mary of the New Testament. What seems to be certain here, is that "LYBSLYM" more accurately "alei betzalim," does NOT literally translate as "Heli/Eli," but may or may not be a play on words in that regard.
Nevertheless, scholars who have extensively studied the contextual evidence see no connection. Herford Travers, author of Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, comments:

"There is, in Jerusalem Hagigah 77d, a reference to a certain Miriam the daughter of 'Eli, whom, on account of the name (cf. Luke iii.23), one might be tempted to connect with the story of Jesus; but there seems to be no suspicion on the part of the Talmud of any such connection, and what is told about her does not seem to me to point in that direction." (Herford Travers, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, pg, 43. Note: Book available on-line: ).

Scholar Norvall Geldenhuys echoes this sentiment as he leans on the work of respected German scholars Strack and Billerbeck who also does not see any connection:

"The Miriam, daughter of Eli, who is referred to in the Talmud (Chagigah 77d), has in all probability nothing to do with Mary the mother of Jesus, as is made plain in Strack-Billerbeck ( in loc .)" (Geldenhuys, Gospel of Luke , 154 n. 5).

While the evidence is not totally conclusive at this point. What has been shown here is the HUGE question mark that is placed over the assertion that "according to received Jewish tradition, Mary was the daughter of Heli/Eli." There are simply to many complications surrounding this Talmudian reference to make such a claim.

http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/mary_genealogy_talmud.html

Now both genealogies include Salathiel, which in 1 Chr. 3:17 is identified as the son of Jechoniah.

According to Jeremiah 22:30, Jehoniah was cursed so that no descendant of him should sit on David throne, thus can't be the Messiah.

Interestingly Mathew rightly refers to Salathiel as the son of Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12).

Now here is Luke making a stunt:

which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
Luke 3:28

And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
Matthew 3:12

Nowhere in the Old Testament there is a Neri of royal blood recorded, but it is supposed that he was the son of Nathan son of David, to whom the genealogies are trying to link Jesus.

The only place where Neriah is mentioned is in Jeremiah 36 through his son Baruch, who also was not mentioned in any chronology that will trace him to David, because on the end of the chapter he is identified as the scribe of Jeremiah.

How likely is it that Luke made Neri up to avoid the blood curse of Salathiel son of Jechonias?

Most likely! So even if we admit that Luke's genealogy is one of Mary, for which there is no evidence aside of dubious Talmud quotation, it is would be that Jesus would stand under Jechonias curse and can not be the Jewish Messiah.


Since my previous ad hoc on the creation narratives was based only on the English version of it, here is somewhat better elaborated version of it.

The creation narrative is told in two different books, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Genesis 1 is thought by critical scholarship to be written by a author that is labeled as (P), while Genesis 2 is thought to be written by another author that is rendered as (J) .
Genesis 1 gives a very rigid time line concerning a course of six days on the creation of the earths content. Genesis 2:4 begins with more relaxed tone and is thought traditionally to be the collaborated version of the sixth day.
According to the P version, God produced the animals before the creation of humans (Genesis 1-25-27). However the J source has a slightly different flow.
This account God first created the man (Adam traditionally) and than produced the animals.
This flat contradiction in both accounts have led many Christians to look for way to reconcile them.
The most common rationalization will be examined and shown that it does not stands in the face of the evidence.
To examine this in-errancy defense, three basic steps will be undertaken:

1. Understand the argument of the defense.
2. Original source grammatical examination.
3. Contextual examination of the text. (periscope)

Understanding the argument of the defense

First it is useful to look at the argument to be examined.

Genesis 1:24-25 records God creating animal life on the sixth day, before He created man. Genesis 2:19, in some translations, seems to record God creating the animals after He had created man. However, a good and plausible translation of Genesis 2:19-20 reads,

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

The text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man. Rather, the text says, “Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals.” There is no contradiction. On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing the man to name the animals.


By considering the two creation accounts individually and then reconciling them, we see that God describes the sequence of creation in Genesis 1, then clarifies its most important details, especially of the sixth day, in Genesis 2. There is no contradiction here, merely a common literary device describing an event from the general to the specific.

The defense argument relies heavily on the alleged misinterpretation of the text. It is claimed that the text tells us that God already created the animals, before he created man because it moves from the general to the specific. The defense relies on a translation of the text that uses the past perfect tense 'had created' when the animals are created. This places the animal creation event before that of the man. In this way it can be claimed that there is no contradiction between the both creation narratives.

Grammatical examination
The in-errancy defense employs past perfect tense as translation for the creation of the animals. To see weather this position of the given argument is justified, it is necessarily to put the original text under grammatical examination. Other early sources will be also examined and modern sources and their translations as well.

Subject of the examination is Genesis 2:19a passage.

The original Hebrew text under examination looks as follows:

The word concerned is וַיִּצֶר֩ that is the transliterated as 'vai·yi·tzer' (Genesis 2:19). This word stems from the Hebrew word יָצַר which is translated as 'to form' or 'fashion', and is rendered in simple past tense in it's plural form. This word is found in some modern Bible translations, translated as 'created' and is rendered by the above in-errancy defense in it's past perfect tense as 'had created'.


Another example of the same tense rendering of this Hebrew word is given in 'A Mechanical Translation of the Book of Genesis: The Hebrew Text Literally ...' by By Jeff A. Benner.
He translates the base form יָצַר as 'Mold' and וַיִּצֶר֩ in it's simple past tense as 'molded'.

Weather the Hebrew word is translated as 'formed' or 'molded', it basically has the same meaning, 'created' out of the dust.
What is really important for the examination here is the tense rendering used in the original text. Both translations render the original Hebrew word in it's simple past tense, which is in odds with the in-errancy defense translation of the concerning word, which it uses it's past perfect tense.


There still can be room for doubt that both translation offered here are wrong.


To justify the tense rendering of the above sources, another passage that uses the same word will be consulted.


Few passages earlier in Genesis 2:7, the creation of man was described by the Bible. In the original text we find the same wording וַיִּיצֶר֩ whose tense is than appropriately rendered either as 'formed' or 'molded'. This word is also is derived from the basic word יָצַר in it's masculine singular form and in past simple tense.


The transliteration of Genesis 2:7 of the first given source looks like this:

In the book 'A Mechanical Translation of the Book of Genesis: The Hebrew Text Literally ...' by By Jeff A. Benner the transliteration is given as follow:

Since the same Hebrew word is rendered the same time in both sources offered here, it is safely to conclude that they are consistent in their tense rendering and translation.


To confirm that the inconsistency of tense rendering of Hebrew and it's translation is found on the part of the in-errancy defense, two other translations will be offered.


The English Standard Version used previously by the in-errancy defense renders and translates the word in the episode of mans creation as follow:

then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
Genesis 2:7

while in the same translation offers the following translation of the animal creation episode:

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
Genesis 2:19

Another modern Biblical translation is the New International Version, which uses exactly the same tense rendering and translation of the Hebrew word as the English Standard Version in the mans creation episode:

Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Genesis 2:7

and makes the same tense rendering in the animal creation episode:

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
Genesis 2:19

It safe to conclude with high degree of certainty that these translations of the Bible offer a inconsistent translations of the original Hebrew text.
The tense rendering of the concerned word in past simple tense can be supported with older Biblical translations in other languages.
Good example would be the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which renders the concerned Hebrew word as έπλασεν in both Genesis (2:7, 2:19) passages:

The word έπλασεν is derived from the basic word πλάσσω (1) with it's basic meaning 'to form, mold, shape' and it's tense rendering in both passages is simple past tense translated as 'shaped'.


Here is a list of English Biblical translations that use the different tense renderings:

1. Past perfect tense: NIV, ESV (ctfn), GW, DARBY, NIRV, NIVUK, TNIV, NIV1984.
2. Simple past tense: NASB, MSG, AMP, NLT, KJV, CEV, NKJV, NCV, GNT, KJ21, ASV, YLT, HCSB.
3. Present perfect tense: DRA

The above list shows interesting outcome, when comparing the English translations. The Bible translations that use past perfect tense are eight in number, out of which, the English Standard Bible gives the correct tense rendering in a foot note (ctfn). From the eight translations, four versions are based on the New International Bible.

Contextual examination (periscope)
Now having examined the grammatical part of the problem, it is necessary to examine the context as well. It was shown that the tense rendering was inconsistently employed to avoid the obvious contradiction between Genesis books and can't be sustained grammatically. In order to make this somewhat sustainable, the in-errancy defense takes the whole event out of the context as well to distort the obvious chronology. In context, it becomes obvious that there is a time frame that inevitably places the animal creation event after the human creation event.
For this purpose, the Amplified Bible Version will be used, which renders the concerned passages in correct tense and still gives somewhat comprehensive translation.

Now the Lord God said, It is not good (sufficient, satisfactory) that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper meet (suitable, adapted, complementary) for him.
And out of the ground the Lord God formed every [wild] beast and living creature of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them; and whatever Adam called every living creature, that was its name.
And Adam gave names to all the livestock and to the birds of the air and to every [wild] beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a helper meet (suitable, adapted, complementary) for him.
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam; and while he slept, He took one of his ribs or a part of his side and closed up the [place with] flesh.
And the rib or part of his side which the Lord God had taken from the man He built up and made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
Then Adam said, This [creature] is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of a man.
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall become united and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Genesis 18-24

The following observations can be made:

1. The time frame begins with the negative conclusion that 'It is not good (sufficient, satisfactory) that the man should be alone '
2. Therefore God declares a goal that 'will make him a helper meet (suitable, adapted, complementary) for him.'
3. Chronologically this ultimately induces the animal creation event, which results in failure which is stated with the conclusion that 'for Adam there was not found a helper meet (suitable, adapted, complementary) for him.'
4. Because this was so, Adam is put to sleep and a rib is taken out of his chest. Out of this raw material the woman was made and ultimately 'brought her to the man'.
5. Finally the initial goal was reached and 'for Adam there was found a helper meet (suitable, adapted, complementary) for him.' for whom 'a man ... shall become united and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'.
6. The finalization of the time frame is good conveyed when understanding the original Hebrew text. Young's literal Translation gives rigid translation of 'This [creature] is' in the above example as 'This [is] the [proper] step!' but the 'The Hebrew term הַפַּעַם (happa’am) means “the [this] time, this place,” or “now, finally, at last.” The expression conveys the futility of the man while naming the animals and finding no one who corresponded to him.' (Genesis 2:23 NetNotes 67)
7. Peculiar argument can be made against creating the animals before man with pointing out that God would not send the man to look for companion among the animals. If he created them before, he would know that there is no companion or counterpart for the man among them, thus he would directly created the woman as his counterpart. However this argument is turned, it renders God ignorant about the fact that the man can't have his counterpart among animals.

The context of the story reveals that the original Hebrew word in Genesis 2:19a can be rendered only in simple past tense and not in past perfect tense.Therefore the majority English translations are correct using this tense rendering.
John Sailhamer gives small summary of the above:

“The NIV has offered an untenable solution in its rendering the waw consecutive in wayyiser by a pluperfect: ‘Now the LORD God had formed.’ Not only is such a translation for the waw consecutive hardly possible, . . . but it misses the very point of the narrative, namely, that the animals were created in response to God’s declaration that it was not good that man should be alone(2:18).”
John Sailhamer, “Genesis,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), p. 48 (1)

Another summary describing the reason for this is offered in the on-line Biblical study tool Net Bible:

58tn Or “fashioned.” To harmonize the order of events with the chronology of chapter one, some translate the prefixed verb form with vav (ו) consecutive as a past perfect (“had formed,” cf. NIV) here. (In chapter one the creation of the animals preceded the creation of man; here the animals are created after the man.) However, it is unlikely that the Hebrew construction can be translated in this way in the middle of this pericope (context), for the criteria for unmarked temporal overlay are not present here. See S. R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew, 84-88, and especially R. Buth, “Methodological Collision between Source Criticism and Discourse Analysis,” Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, 138-54. For a contrary viewpoint see IBHS 552-53 §33.2.3 and C. J. Collins, “The Wayyiqtol as ‘Pluperfect’: When and Why,” TynBul 46 (1995): 117-40.
Genesis 2:19, 58 Net notes

There is a 'vav' consecutive controversy between different camps. The argument revolves around weather in some certain cases this consecutive can be translated in past perfect tense.


It is highly unlikely that this debate will be over so long there are those who have their interest in harmonizing Biblical passages because of their presupposition that it is infallible.

Conclusion
Like it was shown, the most Biblical translations that are using the past perfect tense to render Genesis 2:19a and therefore avoid the obvious contradiction between Genesis one and two are based on the New International Version. Interestingly enough, the NIV was a Evangelical project:

From the beginning of its existence the NIV has been touted as a version made by evangelicals who had the greatest respect for Scripture, and on this ground it was supposed to be worthy of acceptation in conservative evangelical churches. The original NIV preface (1973) declared that "certain convictions and aims have guided the translators. They are all committed to the full authority and complete trustworthiness of the Scriptures, which they believe to be God's Word in written form." In the 1978 preface this statement was strengthened to read, "the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form." (Inerrancy and the NIV).

In the 1978 Preface, the authors of the NIV declared:

In working toward these goals, the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God’s Word in written form. They believe that it contains the divine answer to the deepest needs of humanity, that it sheds unique light on our path in a dark world, and that it sets forth the way to our eternal well-being.
(1)(2)

It is evident that the order of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 is different and cannot be easily reconciled. The text of Genesis 1 and 2 points to two different stories of creation and no harmonizing of the text will solve the problem. To my view, the NIV’s translation violates the rules of Hebrew grammar in order to present an ideological interpretation of the text.
Claude Mariottini, Professor of Old Testament

It becomes obvious that passages were harmonized to fit the conviction of infallibility of the Bible as God’s Word as stated above.


This weights the evidence of this scrutiny in favor that the second creation narrative describes the human creation preceding the animal creation.


Language is powerful tool. Who manipulates language, can manipulate reality. In this instance harmonization of the concerned passages is done with simple tense manipulation to avoid the obvious contradiction.


The reason is simple. In-errancy is considered as internal evidence that the Bible is Gods word. God have figuratively synchronized all those different writers to write consistent message in one book. Small errors in it, just like the one examined here, however reveal the absence of divine guidance and inspiration or render God as forgetful creature who can't remember the flow of the events, that is if we presuppose that the Bible is his literal word.


The most probable explanation for this discrepancy is that both narratives offer different stories with different theological teachings, as Claude Mariottini had already concluded.


Therefore the examined contradiction here will pose a problem only for fundamentalist and creationists.

[Vangelovski]

Makedonin,

You never cease to amuse me - sometimes I can't work out if you're trying to refute information I've posted or to support it!! I'm also not sure of whether you're trying to "disprove" the accuracy of the Bible, the Talmud or some other document at this stage!?!?! Or are you trying to demonstrate your inability to read sentences within the broader context of the paragraphs in which they are contained? For example, the Paul quote you gave - if you read and comprehend the entire paragraph, you'll understand WHICH genealogies he was talking about - it wasn't those of the Bible and it certainly wasn't in the context of geneaologies per se, but a specific disagreement that had arisen.

Either way, you should probably just stick to you're self-professed "scientific" skills. How are you going with comprehending the problems associated with radiometric dating?

[makedonin]

You never cease to amuse me

As long as that is the case it is all good. We are having chat here and sharing informations, should be fun.

you read and comprehend the entire paragraph

Well it is already obvious that you dont stick to what you preach.

Either way, you should probably just stick to you're self-professed "scientific" skills. How are you going with comprehending the problems associated with radiometric dating?

Where would be the fun if we are doing only that what we do in professional life?
And for the radioactive dating, well I already told you what you should do. Do it and improve the science and I would be more than happy. By the way I never claimed to be nuclear scientist. You are making that out of your sleeves.

[Vangelovski]

As long as that is the case it is obvious that you stick to what you preach.

And for the radioactive dating, well I already told you the science never claimed to be correct.

Hey Makedonin,

Look, I know how to cut and chop sentences out of context to make them say what I want them to as well (and I only needed to add one word!). How do you like that for eisegesis!

[makedonin]

Hey Makedonin,

Look, I know how to cut and chop sentences out of context to make them say what I want them to as well (and I only needed to add one word!). How do you like that for eisegesis!

Good that you admit it, it is deffinitly the right step in the right direction.
In reality you are doing that more often than you want to admit.
Its your second nature. You should work on that a bit.

You are living proof that ignorance is bliss.

Hey tell me about the flat earth again, I have to refresh my memory and tell it as bed time story. Thanks in advance, I apppreciate your great "knowledge".