Replies

SR: Your alleged problem concerning Joseph's fathers resolves easily, as a natural consequence of the law of Moses and typical genealogical practice in Israel at the time:

SP: This is a logical fallacy. You're arguing against the weaker point while ignoring the bigger and more glaring issue.

The bigger point is, that if every word in the Bible has a single source, meaning God, there shouldn't be any discrepancy in the stories at all. God knows all and is perfect. Therefore, His word should be perfect always.

Therefore, I can conclude that the Bible is not inerrant because there are flaws introduced by men.

No, that conclusion does not follow from the preceding information. For one thing, you seem to have entirely dismissed the consensus definition of inerrancy and replaced it with a standard you have crafted entirely on your own. To disprove what we believe inerrancy is, you have to work with our definition. Otherwise, you are only preaching to yourself. Of course, you are free to do that, but don't expect us to be much interested in it.

It's like my dad used to say: You can talk to yourself, and that's OK. You can even argue with yourself, and you're still alright. But when you start losing those arguments, that's when you know you are in real trouble. :)

Anyway, sorry, no, no fallacy in the two-genealogies solution for Joseph. Your so-called "bigger issue" looks to me like a "look over here" tactic. We addressed your supposed contradiction by showing the text was both accurate and self-consistent across both Gospels. Since that is the basis of your "larger issue," you failed to show in this case the discrepancy required to prove the bigger issue. If you wish to make your conclusion, you have to succeed in making the supporting premises work, and you have not done that. There is therefore no reason for us to proceed to consideration of your conclusion.

BTW, as an attorney, I don't look for testimony from multiple eyewitnesses to match up perfectly to a casual reading. In fact, if a good attorney sees that sort of "perfection," it is a red flag they are dealing with false testimony. In real testimony, people color it with their own perspective of the event, their own vocabulary, and their own view of the world. Getting and reconciling testimony from multiple sources gives the event a three-dimensional reality that is virtually impossible to fake. In such a context, most "discrepancies" are normally this kind of natural variance between individuals, not true discrepancies of fact. Each is true, but reporting things in a slightly different breakdown of the sequence. But taken as a whole, it is still the same sequence, and the right kind of so-called "discrepancies" actually help prove the truth of it..

So the burden is on you to show to a certainty that no means of reconciling the multiple inputs is possible under any construction. You have not met that burden, nor even moved the needle from the zero mark.

Peace,

SR

Anyway, sorry, no, no fallacy in the two-genealogies solution for Joseph. Your so-called "bigger issue" looks to me like a "look over here" tactic. We addressed your supposed contradiction by showing the text was both accurate and self-consistent across both Gospels. Since that is the basis of your "larger issue," you failed to show in this case the discrepancy required to prove the bigger issue. If you wish to make your conclusion, you have to succeed in making the supporting premises work, and you have not done that. There is therefore no reason for us to proceed to consideration of your conclusion.

BTW, as an attorney, I don't look for testimony from multiple eyewitnesses to match up perfectly to a casual reading. In fact, if a good attorney sees that sort of "perfection," it is a red flag they are dealing with false testimony. In real testimony, people color it with their own perspective of the event, their own vocabulary, and their own view of the world. Getting and reconciling testimony from multiple sources gives the event a three-dimensional reality that is virtually impossible to fake. In such a context, most "discrepancies" are normally this kind of natural variance between individuals, not true discrepancies of fact. Each is true, but reporting things in a slightly different breakdown of the sequence. But taken as a whole, it is still the same sequence, and the right kind of so-called "discrepancies" actually help prove the truth of it..

Sorry Councilor, but I won't be hiring you any time soon. Relying on the ignorance of the person you're debating and not doing due diligence on your sources is terrible way for a lawyer to present a case.

The site you quote from is an apologist site that strains logic to answer this dilemma.

First they talk about carrying on the family name and cite Numbers 36. In that time period there were no family names only family inheritances, property. Numbers 36 is about the transfer of property.

Second, in that time period and in the law of Moses you don't just change genealogies, you couldn't. Your exact genealogy meant something. From your birthright, to blessings passed down from father to son. Those genealogies were kept exact through their records.

There were prophesies regarding the exact linage of Jesus.

So, no it was not proper to refer to Joseph as the son of two different fathers. It's a mistake. Just because you read it on the internet doesn't make it true.

Probably what really happened was, one of the Apostle's just mixed up Mary's father with Joseph's father and wrote the wrong name down. He made the same mistake with names and faces that every human being makes.

If you have a healthy and realistic understanding of the Bible, you can understand how this little mistake memory could happen. Doesn't change the validity of the text, just human frailty.

If you have the perfection of God is linked to the perfection of the Bible view, you get a site like you quoted from. Where you have to jump through hoops and go to great lengths to explain away such simple things like I stated above. And to any reasonable person it looks ridiculous.