>>There is nothing hysterical about telling someone who is openly denying the accuracy of the Bible as saying they are calling God a liar.<<
OK, RB, you obviously have not read a thing I have written if you say that I am denying the accuracy of the bible.
Let me put it to you simply:
There is (at least) one portion of the gospel which is myth. Read Matthew's geneaology. Matthew says Joram begat Uzziah, who begat Jotham. The problem is Chronicles teaches us that Joram did not beget Uzziah, he begat Ahaziah, who begat Joash, who begat Amaziah, who begat Azariah (who probably is Uzziah), who begat Joash.
Further, Matthew tells us that Shealtiel (Salathiel) begat Zorobabel (Zerubabbel). But he did not. Pedaiah, Shealtiel's brother begat Zorobabel.
In fact, Luke tells us that Joseph was descended from David's son, Nathan, while Matthew tells us he was descended from David's son, Solomon. From that point, Matthew and Luke's geneaologies differ completely, right up to Matthew.
Matthew has traced a patrilineage of eldest sons, directly contradicting Luke. Unlike Luke's gospel, Matthew's shows a direct lineage of royal heirs, straight back to David, even though the Old Testament shows the lineage broken at Zerubabel. Matthew says Mary's father-in-law was Jacob, Luke says he was Heli.
Is God lying?
From the simplistic way of reading the bible, I would have to conclude that either Luke and Chronicles or Matthew is a liar or is wrong. Since that is not so, I must conclude that I am misunderstanding one of them.
Whoops!
right up to Matthew = right up to Joseph
When you say that words that clearly say literal day do not mean literal day, then you are saying the Bible is not accurate.
And there needs to be no more said on that.
Is God lying?
From the simplistic way of reading the bible, I would have to conclude that either Luke and Chronicles or Matthew is a liar or is wrong. Since that is not so, I must conclude that I am misunderstanding one of them.
No, You just need to read more :)
Mary's lineage is through Nathan, through Bathsheba, the physical lineage of Jesus birth.
Joseph is NOT the physical parent of Jesus, so HIS father, Jacob would not be listed twice.
It is simple: Matthew lists Jesus lineage through Solomon, the LEGAL parentage through the father, and Luke does through Nathan, the actual parental lineage through Mary.
This is what I have been saying. People have to read what it says, all of it.
While this one is just a case of needing to dig deeper to understand what is an apparent connundrum, the reading of Genesis is not. You have ignored the clear modifiers that directly say the days of Genesis are literal 24 hour days, you then take the statements of Genesis 2 and try to apply the same word understanding of Genesis 1 when they are two tellings of the same event in two different ways. Genesis 1 speaks of the Creation of all things, while Genesis 2 is an expansion on the creation of MAN.