DLH

Now look ... I can't make this stuff up. It is correct because that is the way that they did it. Your problem is that you fail to understand that. You, in fact and in a sense, are the one who is projecting something you suppose must be true. You are making it up. I question that. And you are giving protest rather than answer.

Deus Ex

Given enough time and effort, a person can rationalize away any contradiction or inaccuracy in the Bible. It is just that the harmonizations begin to sound implausible after awhile. Perhaps it is just the difference in the way that skeptics and believers think.

A more interesting question is:
How did God inspire the writings? Did he dictate verbally? Did the Biblical authors have visions? Did they begin writing, and intuitively know what to write? How does Divine Inspiration work?

WVIncagold

not really i concede that all those creatures fly, well except the ostrich so that kind of takes the whole flying part out of the scripture to interpret and blows your argument out of the water( so remind me who is clinging to a predetermined conclusion). but ignoring the large flightless bird, what was discussed was all birds. they have similar attributes. beaks, feathers, wings, and behaviors which are observable and we attribute to being bird like, such as building nest and laying eggs. the bat has none of these same characteristics. In fact it even has talons on its fingers and a membrane and gives birth to live young, has anyone ever reported a bat egg? The only way to confuse the bat with a bird is never ever observing one up close, which is quite possible but doubtful. I have contrived nothing. I am looking at what is stated and drawing a conclusion on those statements in the scripture. I agree the KJV is a terrible document but it is unlike the Holy Qu'ran which is only true word of God correct? Its believers say it is the only uncorrupted word of god so you must believe it is correct. Anyways regardless a reasoned approach would be to see the inconsistency, i recognized it as a child. I did not use confirmation bias to formulate my opinion. I looked at what can only be the prattling of a very naive and uneducated sheep herder and see it is a very large inconsistency in a book that is supposed to reveal the true knowledge of the universe.

WVIncagold

That would make a wonderful thread in itself.

aa5874

But, you are still denying that you fabricated your BOGUS claim about the author of Luke's use of Mary's ancestry.

Everyone who has an NT with gLuke 3.23-38 can read and see that the word MARY is not even there.

Your credibilty is even less than ZERO, now.

DLH

No. I am not denying that I fabricated my bogus claim because it wasn't fabricated or bogus. So ... I guess I am denying that. As such. I think that you overestimate my intelligence. I have told you that I havn't made it up. It is your job to demonstrate that I have. You are not convincing.

Yes. But that isn't really an issue is it? Who was Mary's father? Why is his name there? What are you trying to prove? And why do you repetedly write gLuke? Thats what I want to know!

Oh, man! [stomps foot] Well, there you have it. Less than zero! Damn!

Listen to me carefully. I am not concerned with my credibility in your or anyone elses eyes. What concerns me is that you keep saying that I am wrong on this when most everyone else hasn't. The problem is, from my perspective, that you havn't demonstrated 1 single reason for doing so.

That is what I would like to see. Just that one step above zero.

thentian

He is simply asking you to substantiate your claim (that the Jews at that time did this). By the rules of discourse and logic and what have you, you must do so when challenged to or else forfeit your claim.

I have seen the solution you gave on a Catholic Doctrine site before (very similar), which is why I didn't bother to call you out on it earlier. I assumed that either the catholics or you have some evidence for it. Now I'm beginning to wonder. What evidence is there, really, that this was a normal practice among the jews?

Cheers!

DLH

I really don't understand the nature of your objection. The Bible mentions birds with bats. Does that mean that the Bible assumes they are the same? Mammels and all that? The more accurate translation not being birds but flying creatures blows the ostrich right out of the water. Or sand. The ostrich doesn't fly. I get it. It has feathers not fur. Science. The chicken and the turkey doesn't fly. But they are birds. It is funny how science minded skeptics will cling doggedly to facts without question. Just so long as it is in the name of science.

Wait [doofus says] they can't be birds because they can't fly.

Get over it.

DLH

The problem is that I have already done that, in my original post on the subject. It was a pretty long post that dealt with the subject in as much detail that is necessary. What more do you want? A time machine?

aa5874

I have already given everyone on this thread Luke 3.23-38 to read. The name Mary is just not in the genealogy.

The passages have demonstrated that your claim is bogus.

You must have fabricated your claim that Luke uses Mary's ancestry.