Gamera

Well, you got an uninerrantist here (which I think represents basically 99% of Christianity), and like I said, plenty of ways to reconcile the genealogies, some plausible some not, but who cares since the David connection is pure messianic Judaism, that meant something to the 1st century audience, but doesn't to anybody else.

If you look at the examples of the gospel message in the NT (Acts 17, Acts 26, John 3:16, as well as Paul's statements about what he preached, such as 1 Cor 15), Davidic lineage isn't included. I'm not saying modern churches don't get all confused about stuff like this, but I will say it wasn't ever part of the gospel message, just the gospel narrative.

So good luck causing anxiety with the inerrantists. They deserve it.

Tigers!

Category mistake.
The 2nd equation despite containing the 1st is factually incorrect according to the laws of addition. Words, phrases, ideas etc: don't follow the laws of additions nor mathematics for that matter.

The fact that two versions differ does not necessarily imply a contraction nor that both are wrong.

Stacey Melissa

We're counting generations here. So in this case, there is no categorical mistake.

If you tell me there are 2 generations between you and your great-great-great-great-grandfather, are you just leaving out some detail, or is it factually incorrect?

That's true in some cases, although not in this one. See the Law of Noncontradiction; I can write a proof to show you how the lineages violate this law, although I can hardly believe I would have to explicate something so ridiculously obvious.

Also, I never claimed that both lineages are wrong. I only claim that at least one version must be factually incorrect.

Stacey Melissa

If you know of some plausible reconciliation schemes, I'd love to hear them.

I guess a lot of Christians take that aspect seriously. Fundamentalists usually do, at least. Fundamentalists are the ones who I'm after; they sure seem to make up a lot more than just 1% of the population where I'm from.

Tigers!

It is factually incorrect as there are more generations than that in that sequence. However if you only mention some of the generations names i.e you only mention Tom, Dick & Harry, then you are merely leaving out some detail.

Stacey Melissa

Maybe I'm just missing it, but I can't find Athaliah listed in 1 Chronicles. Or it could be spelled differently in my translation (I use the NRSV). What verse(s) did you get his name from?

Stacey Melissa

Good. I'm glad we're in agreement

I agree with you here, too. The thing is though, the author of Matthew explicitly says there are 14 generations. He says this in 1:17...

Are you catching on now?

Stacey Melissa

Nevermind, I just did a search for "Athaliah" and figured out who she was. She was the mother of Ahaziah, and the wife of Joram. Thus, she is in the same generation as Joram; she doesn't get her own generation. That means there are only three generations missing from the lineage given in Matthew - not four, as you claim.

Thus, your attempt at reconciling the lineages fails, and my favorite contradiction remains airtight. Down with inerrancy!

Nuwanda

Wrong again my friend. Rather than just doing google searches you might want to read up a little on your "favorite contradictions." Please read 2 Chronicles 22:10-12. You'll see that she reigned over Judah for 6 years. She doesn't make it on the lineage of the kings in 1 Chronicles because she was not a legitimate ruler (precisely the same reason Matthew leaves all 4 of them out of his record, please reread my last post).

I understand that attempting to learn about contraditions in the Bible through internet searches can be very confusing and misleading, as you demonstrated, primarily because it usually removes a particular scripture from its context. If you really want to stump a believer you really should read their material first.

Also, you conveniently ignored every point of my argument and focused on a side note to avoid the obvious weakness in your proposed "contradiction." I challenge you to battle my last post point for point if you are really so proud of your argument, if your not proud of it then I'll understand. Not only is it not water tight, your ship has already sunk. I suggest picking a new favorite. :wave:

Angrillori

So, let's get this straight.

Mathew explicitly, EXPLICITLY, says there were specifically 14 generations. But Chronicles explicitly names at least 17 generations.

Wowsers.

That is a good one.

Since the minimum numberin Chronicles is larger than the number Matthew explicitly states, that's quite a problem.

I wonder why biblical redactors didn't correct that though. Usually copyists/translators over the past 2000 years have proven themselves good at fixing the more glaring problems. Why/how did they miss this one? Were there too many independent copies of Chronicles in Jewish hands out there? Was the Matthew 14/14/14 too well known at the same time the Chronicles listings were widely spread in Jewish hands?



I can kinda see where Tiger is going with this, claiming an implicit "at least" in the Matthean text, but it sure seems that that reading and insertion is unwarranted. Matthew is pretty specific in naming 14 as the specific number, not merely the minimum bound of the number of generations in that duration.