What is Inerrancy?

[Jorge S]

That's a pretty bold interpretive move seeing as Luke's genealogy starts with Joseph, not Mary. So I guess we can interpret the Bible as meaning "Mary" when it says "Joseph" and still claim it's "inerrant"? Someone care to explain this tidal wave of good sense to me?

In addition to what Shiloh responded there is also the interesting issue of the fulfilment of Jeremiah's prophecy upon Jechonias (also Jeconiah, Coniah or Jehoiachin) mentioned in Mat 1:12 as Joseph's ancestor. This is better explained by Bible commentator Barnhouse and is worth to quote at length:

There [are] two genealogies. The lines run parallel from Abraham to David, but then Matthew comes down to Jesus by way of Solomon... while Luke comes down ... by way of Nathan. ... When I state that Luke's genealogy is that of the Virgin Mary and Matthew's genealogies that of Joseph, ...I am setting forth the only explanation that will fit the facts. The whole point of the difference is that Solomon's line was the royal line and Nathan's line was the legal line...

But the greatest proof of all lies in one of the names in the account of Matthew: the name Jechonias. It is that name that furnishes the reason for the inclusion of the genealogy of Jesus' stepfather, for it proves that Joseph could not have been the father of Jesus, or if he had been, that Jesus could not have been the Messiah. In the use of that name is conclusive evidence that Jesus is the son of Mary and not the son of Joseph. Jechonias was accursed of God with a curse that took the throne away from any of his descendants.

"Thus says the Lord," we read in Jeremiah 22:30, "write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah." Not one of the seven sons (1 Chron 3;17, 18) of this man ever possessed the throne. No carnal son of this man could have been king because of the curse of God. If Jesus had been the son of Joseph, He would have been accursed and could never have been the Messiah.

On the other hand, the line of Nathan was not the royal line. A son of Heli would have faced the fact that there was a regal line that would have contested any claim that came from the line of Nathan. How was the dilemma solved? It was solved in a manner that was so simple that it is the utter confusion of the agnostics who seek to tear the Bible to pieces. The answer is this: The line that had no curse upon it produced Heli and his daughter the Virgin Mary and her Son Jesus Christ. He is therefore eligible by the line of Nathan and exhausts that line. The line that had the curse on it produced Joseph, exhausts the line of Solomon, for Joseph's other children now have an older brother who, legally, by adoption, is the royal heir. How can the title be free in any case? A curse on the line and the lack of reigning royalty in the other.

But when God the Holy Spirit begat the Lord Jesus in the womb of the Virgin without any use of a human father, the child that was born was the seed of David according to the flesh. And when Joseph married Mary and took the unborn child under his protecting care, giving Him the title that had come down to Him through His ancestor Solomon, the Lord Jesus became the legal Messiah, the royal Messiah, the uncursed Messiah, the true Messiah, the only possible Messiah. The lines are exhausted. Any man that ever comes into this world professing to fulfil the conditions will be a liar and the child of the devil.

(Donald Grey Barnhouse, pp45-47, Man's Ruin, Vol 1, Expositions of Bible Doctrines, Grand Rapids 1952. Cited by Josh MacDowell, The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict, Nelson Publishers 1999.)

[CSLewis]

Great question - I really believe it is allegory based on several indicators- symbolism and archatypes abound for one.

[MorningGlory]

God is amazing. Instead of creating a bunch of different creatures individually and then restarting them over again, he created all of matter to be governed by laws and rules that He designed. In each living thing is the innate ability to adapt and change and evolve. God saw us as his unique creation and implanted a soul into mankind. With that soul came mans ability to choose evil. Because of our great evil we were doomed to a spiritual death separated by God by sin. God had mercy on us and sent His only Son born of a virgin to die and conquer sin so that we all may be in communion with God, through the Holy Spirit.

So God let life evolve for millions of years and then dropped a soul into the resultant man? Or did He implant the soul 200,000,000 years ago? Or did He off load us from another planet? Why, exactly, would the Creator of the universe just let life develop through natural selection when He could create it in a week? Genesis tells us He DID create the individual 'kinds', including man. You are denying Scripture, CS, once again.

[Matthitjah]

Great question - I really believe it is allegory based on several indicators- symbolism and archatypes abound for one.

Yet, Eve is included in the same genealogy that these other women are.

How are we to delineate brother? What's the measuring line when our position doesn't line up with scripture?

In Luke we read this;

Lu

[MorningGlory]

In the same way when I look at contradictions between the Word and reality I use my brain to try and figure out how they can both be true and have come to the conclusion that the Creation account is not a technical description. I do so because I see the sheer enormity of this problem and because I recognize the need for contradictions to be resolved. Does this mean that the creation account is rendered worthless? I don't think so, just as the genealogies are not rendered useless if we do not take one or both at their face value the creation account has worth, but that worth is not as a technical description.

It's like a boat, Lurker, and you missed it.

[CSLewis]

Dr. Matson does a good job explaining this

http://scibel.com/scibel/print%20-%20mater...ly%20exist.html

symbols include - Eden, the snake, nakedness, tree of good and evil, the fruit, dust, the rib, even Adam the name literally means man or humankind - Paul refers to Christ as the last Adam.

[Guest lovinghim4ever]

:blink:

[Guest shiloh357]

The problem lies with your lack of knowledge of ancient Jewish tradition. Joseph married Mary and became the son of her father, Heli. Since only men's names appear in ancient Hebrew genealogies (because women could not own property), It is not surprising that Joseph would stand for Mary as the son of Heli even though it is obvious that it is her father's genealogy that is being mentioned. Jesus is physically a descendent of David through Mary and legally a descendent of David through Joseph.

Let's go back to the original discussion that brought up the genealogies to regain some focus,

what do you do with the apparant contradictions (in the bible) that would come in, if you believed that? First example off the top of my head is genealogies

I do very much the same thing you probably do with contradictions in the NT genealogies of Matthew and Luke (Matthew has Joseph as a descendant of Solomon whereas Luke has Joseph as a descendant of Nathan) in that I recognize that they are written for purposes other than the kind of sequential history we use today.

The point being that when we both look at an apparent contradiction in scripture such as these genealogies we use our brains to try and figure out how they can both be true, and we eventually do so by saying that (in your case) one or (in my case) both are not written as technical descriptions. There's not really anything in the text of Luke to indicate this is Mary's genealogy, people have merely come up with this explanation on their own because they recognize the need for contradictions to be resolved.

In the same way when I look at contradictions between the Word and reality I use my brain to try and figure out how they can both be true and have come to the conclusion that the Creation account is not a technical description. I do so because I see the sheer enormity of this problem and because I recognize the need for contradictions to be resolved. Does this mean that the creation account is rendered worthless? I don't think so, just as the genealogies are not rendered useless if we do not take one or both at their face value the creation account has worth, but that worth is not as a technical description.

Lurker

Your premise is faulty because there is no contradiction in the genealogies. Joseph is not the natural father of Jesus. He is Jesus' legal father. There would only be a contradiction if the genealogies were claiming that Jesus was the biological descendent of both Solomon and Nathan. Jesus is the legal descendent of Solomon and He is the biological descendent of Nathan. Jesus birth was supernatural in that He had no earthly father, but was conceived of the Holy Spirit.

In the same way when I look at contradictions between the Word and reality I use my brain to try and figure out how they can both be true and have come to the conclusion that the Creation account is not a technical description.

It is not a technical or scientific account, but that does not mean it is not an historically accurate account. Furthermore, your contradiction analogy fails here because we are talking about a contradiction between passages in the Bible, but between a theory made by fallible errant men and an account of man's origin inspired and delivered by an all-knowing, all powerful, inerrant Creator.

Your nonsense about it not being technical is just an excuse not to believe the Bible. It is not just the creation account you disbelieve, but any other part of the Bible that upholds and confirms the Genesis account.

The point being that when we both look at an apparent contradiction in scripture such as these genealogies we use our brains to try and figure out how they can both be true...

All we have to do is read the Bible itself.

[Guest shiloh357]

Dr. Matson does a good job explaining this

http://scibel.com/scibel/print%20-%20mater...ly%20exist.html

symbols include - Eden, the snake, nakedness, tree of good and evil, the fruit, dust, the rib, even Adam the name literally means man or humankind - Paul refers to Christ as the last Adam.

The entire article is a theological trainwreck. But I am not surprised that you would post such pitiful drivel.

[CSLewis]

Haha of course Shiloh -