Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Had a chance to make a real comparison of the genealogies between Matthew and Luke and I must come away asking, "What on earth was the writer of Luke thinking of when he put this thing together. I won't elaborate except to provide some charts that show how so totally off his genealogy is from Matthew's and how far off both are from the record found in Chronicles, starting with David:
I cannot create grids on this post so one has to read vertically instead of horizontally, but notice that Matthew uses Solomon's lineage while Luke, for some odd reason, resorts to Nathan the prophet who warned David about his sin with Bathsheba.
There are numerous additions, deletions, and what appear to be outright fabrications if one examines all the of graphs at the link below. To those who accuse me trying to undermine people's faith I say, "Look, if the lineages are perfect then what's the problem? Call me a liar and a troublemaker. But if there ARE obvious errors, what is so unChristian with pointing them out and asking for a rational explanation instead of trying to evade or cover up the truth?"
By the way, I don't go with the author's premise that Jesus never existed. Of course I believe He did and that He was God's Son. I only use the page for easily referencing the charts.
Had a chance to make a real comparison of the genealogies between Matthew and Luke and I must come away asking, "What on earth was the writer of Luke thinking of when he put this thing together. I won't elaborate except to provide some charts that show how so totally off his genealogy is from Matthew's and how far off both are from the record found in Chronicles, starting with David:
I cannot create grids on this post so one has to read vertically instead of horizontally, but notice that Matthew uses Solomon's lineage while Luke, for some odd reason, resorts to Nathan the prophet who warned David about his sin with Bathsheba.
There are numerous additions, deletions, and what appear to be outright fabrications if one examines all the of graphs at the link below. To those who accuse me trying to undermine people's faith I say, "Look, if the lineages are perfect then what's the problem? Call me a liar and a troublemaker. But if there ARE obvious errors, what is so unChristian with pointing them out and asking for a rational explanation instead of trying to evade or cover up the truth?"
By the way, I don't go with the author's premise that Jesus never existed. Of course I believe He did and that He was God's Son. I only use the page for easily referencing the charts.
This accusation again? The skeptics charges of error never stop!!!
There are no errors in the geneologies.
Excerpt:
One of the charges of contradiction brought by skeptics against the Bible is the surface appearance of contradiction between Matthew’s genealogical list (1:1-17) and the one provided by Luke (3:23-38). As is always the case, the charge of contradiction is premature and reflects an immature appraisal of the extant evidence. In every case of alleged contradiction, further investigation has yielded additional evidence that exonerates the Bible and further verifies its inerrancy. The alleged discrepancies pertaining to Matthew and Luke’s genealogies were explained and answered long ago (e.g., Haley, 1977, pp. 325-326; McGarvey, 1910, pp. 344-346; McGarvey, 1974, pp. 51-55; cf. Lyons, 2003). Read >>Apologetics Press - The Genealogies of Matthew and Luke
This accusation again? The skeptics charges of error never stop!!!
There are no errors in the geneologies.
Excerpt:
One of the charges of contradiction brought by skeptics against the Bible is the surface appearance of contradiction between Matthew’s genealogical list (1:1-17) and the one provided by Luke (3:23-38). As is always the case, the charge of contradiction is premature and reflects an immature appraisal of the extant evidence. In every case of alleged contradiction, further investigation has yielded additional evidence that exonerates the Bible and further verifies its inerrancy. The alleged discrepancies pertaining to Matthew and Luke’s genealogies were explained and answered long ago (e.g., Haley, 1977, pp. 325-326; McGarvey, 1910, pp. 344-346; McGarvey, 1974, pp. 51-55; cf. Lyons, 2003). Read >>Apologetics Press - The Genealogies of Matthew and Luke
It's always good to get both sides of the story. The reason most commonly given in your links is that Luke is tracing Mary's lineage, which makes her a descendant of Nathan the prophet while Joseph is a descendant of Solomon. Otherwise, from Abraham up to David their lineages are nearly identical.
Interesting.
This raises the question of course, Is Luke really giving Mary's lineage:
Quote:
Is Luke giving Mary's genealogy?
"Luke’s genealogy, was universally supposed to be that of Joseph."
– Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, NPNF2-01.
"Mattan, who was descended from Solomon, begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who was descended from Nathan begat Eli by the same woman. Eli and Jacob were thus uterine brothers. Eli having died childless, Jacob raised up seed to him, begetting Joseph, his own son by nature, but by law the son of Eli. Thus Joseph was the son of both." – Eusebius, History of the Church, 1.7.15.
Eusebius is indebted to Julius Africanus (Epistle to Aristides), a 3rd century Christian writer, for an ingenious resolution of the "alleged discrepancy" in the genealogies presented by Matthew and Luke. It seems that two men married the same woman and each fathered a son. The two sons grew up and then married the same woman – and the result was Joseph, the husband of Mary – "although we can urge no testimony in its support," adds Eusebius.
God probably knew he would only have to worry about 'Luke's incompetence' in recording Christ's lineage for 2000 years ... when you would come along and straighten everything out.
I'm just glad these kinds of questions do not plague me. If the bible had to be perfect and inerrant for me to have faith in Christ - well, I guess I would be an atheist. But I do not rely on the perfection of the books. Eat the meat and throw out the bones... that's my motto.
Had a chance to make a real comparison of the genealogies between Matthew and Luke and I must come away asking, "What on earth was the writer of Luke thinking of when he put this thing together. I won't elaborate except to provide some charts that show how so totally off his genealogy is from Matthew's and how far off both are from the record found in Chronicles, starting with David:
I cannot create grids on this post so one has to read vertically instead of horizontally, but notice that Matthew uses Solomon's lineage while Luke, for some odd reason, resorts to Nathan the prophet who warned David about his sin with Bathsheba.
There are numerous additions, deletions, and what appear to be outright fabrications if one examines all the of graphs at the link below. To those who accuse me trying to undermine people's faith I say, "Look, if the lineages are perfect then what's the problem? Call me a liar and a troublemaker. But if there ARE obvious errors, what is so unChristian with pointing them out and asking for a rational explanation instead of trying to evade or cover up the truth?"
By the way, I don't go with the author's premise that Jesus never existed. Of course I believe He did and that He was God's Son. I only use the page for easily referencing the charts.
Had a chance to make a real comparison of the genealogies between Matthew and Luke and I must come away asking, "What on earth was the writer of Luke thinking of when he put this thing together. I won't elaborate except to provide some charts that show how so totally off his genealogy is from Matthew's and how far off both are from the record found in Chronicles, starting with David:
I cannot create grids on this post so one has to read vertically instead of horizontally, but notice that Matthew uses Solomon's lineage while Luke, for some odd reason, resorts to Nathan the prophet who warned David about his sin with Bathsheba.
There are numerous additions, deletions, and what appear to be outright fabrications if one examines all the of graphs at the link below. To those who accuse me trying to undermine people's faith I say, "Look, if the lineages are perfect then what's the problem? Call me a liar and a troublemaker. But if there ARE obvious errors, what is so unChristian with pointing them out and asking for a rational explanation instead of trying to evade or cover up the truth?"
By the way, I don't go with the author's premise that Jesus never existed. Of course I believe He did and that He was God's Son. I only use the page for easily referencing the charts.
I just spent the last three or four hours reading various things on that site...The person has issues...It is not objective at all no a search for truth but the subjective rantings of an immature adolescent...I noticed several errors...Nothing scholarly about it...Just someone with a lot of hate...
God probably knew he would only have to worry about 'Luke's incompetence' in recording Christ's lineage for 2000 years ... when you would come along and straighten everything out.
What did I straighten out. I'm more confused than ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Do you honestly believe no one would have questioned it?
A lot of people did, but we're no closer to solving the mystery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jghorton
God probably knew he would only have to worry about 'Luke's incompetence' in recording Christ's lineage for 2000 years ... when you would come along and straighten everything out.
Not sure I straightened anything out--just asked why are there discrepancies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heartsong
I'm just glad these kinds of questions do not plague me. If the bible had to be perfect and inerrant for me to have faith in Christ - well, I guess I would be an atheist. But I do not rely on the perfection of the books. Eat the meat and throw out the bones... that's my motto.
Yep. Me too. But I pose questions just to keep people on their toes around here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
I just spent the last three or four hours reading various things on that site...The person has issues...It is not objective at all no a search for truth but the subjective rantings of an immature adolescent...I noticed several errors...Nothing scholarly about it...Just someone with a lot of hate...
Whether the person has issues or not is not the "issue". Is what he says accurate "is". Sort of like Clinton.
Had a chance to make a real comparison of the genealogies between Matthew and Luke and I must come away asking, "What on earth was the writer of Luke thinking of when he put this thing together. I won't elaborate except to provide some charts that show how so totally off his genealogy is from Matthew's and how far off both are from the record found in Chronicles, starting with David:
I cannot create grids on this post so one has to read vertically instead of horizontally, but notice that Matthew uses Solomon's lineage while Luke, for some odd reason, resorts to Nathan the prophet who warned David about his sin with Bathsheba.
There are numerous additions, deletions, and what appear to be outright fabrications if one examines all the of graphs at the link below. To those who accuse me trying to undermine people's faith I say, "Look, if the lineages are perfect then what's the problem? Call me a liar and a troublemaker. But if there ARE obvious errors, what is so unChristian with pointing them out and asking for a rational explanation instead of trying to evade or cover up the truth?"
By the way, I don't go with the author's premise that Jesus never existed. Of course I believe He did and that He was God's Son. I only use the page for easily referencing the charts.
The major problem with Luke's genealogy is that it lists David followed by Nathan and not Solomon.
Both 2 Samual 7 and 1 Chronicles 22 make it clear that the messiah must be the biological son of both David AND Solomon, not Nathan who never sat on the throne of Israel.
2 Samuel 7:12-13 12When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
Note: It was Samual, not Nathan, who built the Temple.
1 Chronicles 22:9-11 9See, a son shall be born to you; he shall be a man of peace. I will give him peace from all his enemies on every side; for his name shall be Solomon,* and I will give peace* and quiet to Israel in his days. 10He shall build a house for my name. He shall be a son to me, and I will be a father to him, and I will establish HIS royal throne in Israel for ever.” 11Now, my son, the Lord be with you, so that you may succeed in building the house of the Lord your God, as he has spoken concerning you.
Thus messianic lineage had to pass through BOTH David and Solomon, not David and Nathan.
Rehoboam, the next king of Isreal was Solomon's biological son. Nathan was never occupied the royal throne.
Luke got it wrong, although one can find many fundamentalists who use the most far-fetched reasoning to try to prove otherwise.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
