Skeptic's Challenge

[DLH]

I'm going to go over some of the first response you made and then the second.

The problem with this is that Luke unequivocally states that Heli was Joseph's father, "Joseph, son of Heli". If they had no term for father in law, then there are other ways that relation can be described. If it is true that in that time Jewish genealogy was simply done that way, you need to show that using an unbiased source. I don't know enough about 1st century Jewish genealogy to know if that is the case, and I am not simply going to accept your word for it.

I don't suppose you would take the word of M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774) or The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible (Revised Edition of 1944, page 198, column 1) as an unbiased source, either? What possible unbiased source would be commenting on such a thing, Richard Dawkins? And what would you expect them to know? The Hebrew word for son, ben, and the Greek word for the same, huios, are used in a broader sense than an immediate male offspring. They can mean adopted son (Exodus 2:10 / John 1:45) a descendant like a grandson or great-grandson (Exodus 1:7 / 2 Chronicles 35:14 / Jeremiah 35:16 / Matthew 12:23) or a son-in-law (1 Chronicles 3:17 / Luke 3:27) Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah and the son-in-law of Neri.

I am referring to the Matthat from Luke 3:24. I will reiterate that Luke presents him as Joseph's grandfather, not Mary's. My other point was that given the very similar names, Matthat and Matthan, there is a likelihood that they are actually the some person, compounding the genealogical issue. They were basically the same name in Hebrew, as they are both derived from the same Hebrew root word, natan, meaning 'to give', and Matthat is never used in the Hebrew bible. Matthat is considered a transliteration. But let's leave the Matthat/Matthan issue aside, and concentrate on your understanding of 1st century Jewish genealogy for the time being.

Glad to set that aside, but briefly, There are two Matthats listed in Mary's ancestry, the son of Levi, at Luke 3:29 and Mary's grandfather, son of Heli, listed at Luke 3:23, 24. Matthan was Joseph's grandfather. Matthew 1:15, 16.

First off, if you want to present an unbroken line from an ancestor to a descendant, yes, you do need to have everyone in that line listed in the genealogy.

No, you do not. Much earlier, Ezra, when listing his genealogy (Ezra 7:1-5) was missing several names that are found at 1 Chronicles 6:3-14. It could have been to shorten the list, or that he used only familiar names. If you are giving the descendants of a famous man, like George Washington, you don't need to give every name to establish connection. For example, if you know one man is a man's father's great grandfather was connected to Washington you don't need to establish that by listing the grandfather and great-grandfather.


Second response coming soon.

 

[DLH]

Second Response.

Please review my post, I asked for an unbiased source. Wikipedia has this to say about Godet:

Frédéric Louis Godet (October 25, 1812, Neuchâtel–October 29, 1900, Neuchâtel) was a Swiss Protestant theologian. After studying theology at Neuchâtel, Bonn and Berlin, he was in 1850 appointed professor of theology at Neuchâtel. From 1851 to 1866 he also held a pastorate. In 1873 he became one of the founders of the free Evangelical Church of Neuchâtel, and professor in its theological faculty. A conservative scholar, Godet was the author of some noteworthy French commentaries.

Think about what you are asking me to do. Give a source that is unbiased implies what?

Okay, let's say I trust Godet as a source, even though he is not an unbiased source. The Jewish adage is "The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant". Unfortunately, we are not talking about Mary's descendants, but rather her ancestors (though I will note that at least one of her descendants, Jesus, is certainly known as her descendant in the Bible). Do you have any reference (hopefully unbiased) that shows a Jewish woman of the 1st century would have her ancestry transferred to her husband when describing that husbands ancestry?

You do realize that the Bible's chronology, which Matthew and Luke undoubtedly used to comprise their lists, is exactly what you are asking for?

Yes, it simply repeats the assertion that it is not necessary to show an unbroken line of ancestry to prove one's ancestral link to an ancient King, then goes on to mention that three kings were removed from the ancestral line because the first in their line was naughty. My first point still stands, if you want to prove an ancestral link to anyone, you must show the entire unbroken line. Skipping Kings because you don't like them simply won't do. Also, removing these three Kings from the lineage still leaves us with a difference of about a dozen generations, which is still over a 200 year difference between the two lineages.

I reiterate that I do not intend to let this go until you have satisfactorily met my challenge.

I've pretty much addressed this in the first response. Let's say you have Jesus' genealogy in front of you and you are a Pharisee or Sadducee who is expecting the Messiah at that time. You see that a man before the naughty king is there and then you see someone who the records show is an ancestor of the one before that naughty king. Why would you need the naughty king listed? Take out any number of similar people over a period of 2 or 3 thousand years and the same applies. You do not need all of the names when comparing them to the genealogical record.

 

[DLH]

So you're a Jehovah's Witness? They're the ones that thought Michael and Jesus were one and the same. Nowhere in the Bible does it say this. In fact, the distinction between angel and man is pretty clear from the Bible.

You also didn't answer fta's question with your copy and paste reply...

So, where did the resurrected Jesus first appear to his male disciples? On a mountain in Galilee? Or in Emmaus/Jerusalem, 500 miles away? Did Jesus order the disciples to wait in Jerusalem, or did he tell them to go to Galilee?

I don't know, you tell me. Who cares? And why? go through it. Point it all out to me. I'm tired of explaining this stuff . . . say . . . aren't you the dude that looks like a lady? I didn't mean anything by that. You're a good kid. But, uh, the Jehovah's Witness thing you got wrong. Let me show you.

[Digs up from the archive that is, quite frankly, the superhighway of misinformation - with the good. All mixed up]

John A. Lees, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1930, Vol. 3, page 2048 - "The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Rev 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Dnl ."
Protestant Reformer John Calvin on "Michael" in its occurrence at Daniel 12:1. - "I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people."

J. Calvin, COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.

William L. Alexander, Doctor Of Divinity - There seems good reason for regarding Michael as the Messiah. Such was the opinion of the best among the ancient Jews.... With this all the Bible representations of Michael agree. He appears as the Great Prince who standeth for Israel (Dan. xii. I), and he is called "the Prince of Israel" (Dan. x. 21)--William L. Alexander, ed., A CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE, originally edited by John Kitto, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: A & C Black, 1886). vol. 3, p. 158.

Britanica.com - "Here Arius joined an older tradition of Christology, which had already played a role in Rome in the early 2nd century--namely, the so-called angel-Christology. The descent of the Son to Earth was understood as the descent to Earth of the highest prince of the angels, who became man in Jesus Christ; he is to some extent identified with the angel prince Michael. In the old angel-Christology the concern is already expressed to preserve the oneness of God, the inviolable distinguishing mark of the Jewish and Christian faiths over against all paganism. The Son is not himself God, but as the highest of the created spiritual beings he is moved as close as possible to God. Arius joined this tradition with the same aim--i.e., defending the idea of the oneness of the Christian concept of God against all reproaches that Christianity introduces a new, more sublime form of polytheism."

A Bible Dictionary published by Logos International, an evangelical Protestant outfit - "Michael ... in Dan. 10:13,21; 12:1, is described as having a special charge of the Jewish nation, and in Rev. 12:7-9 as the leader of the angelic army. So exalted are the position and offices ascribed to Michael, that many think the Messiah is meant." -- INTERNATIONAL BIBLE DICTIONARY -- ILLUSTRATED (Plainfield, NJ, Logos International, 1977), p. 35.

Methodist commentator Adam Clarke, regarding the occurrence of "Michael" in Revelation 12:7-10 - "By the personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus." (his multi-volume commentary -- not just the 1-volume abridged ed. by Ralph Earle----published by Abingdon Press, vol. 6, page 952).

Lange's Commentary on Revelation 12:7-10 - "the warlike form of Christ." J.P. Lange's COMMENTARY ON THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, s.v. Rev. 12:7.

An Exposition Of The Bible, produced by 27 different scholars, says of Michael - "It is even itself probable that the Leader of the hosts of light (in Rev. 12:7-9) will be no other than the Captain of our salvation, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.... Above all, the prophecies of Daniel, in which the name Michael first occurs, may be said to decide the point." -- publ. in Hartford, CT, 1910, by the Scranton Co., vol. 6, p.882.

Matthew Henry Commentary - Concerning Revelation 12:9 in Henry’s unabridged and concise commentaries.
2. The parties-Michael and his angels on one side, and the dragon and his angels on the other: Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and all his instruments. This latter party would be much superior in number and outward strength to the other; but the strength of the church lies in having the Lord Jesus for the captain of their salvation.

Verses 7-11 The attempts of the dragon proved unsuccessful against the church, and fatal to his own interests. The seat of this war was in heaven; in the church of Christ, the kingdom of heaven on earth. The parties were Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and his instruments.

Concerning Daniel 10 in Henry’s unabridged commentary.

Here is Michael our prince, the great protector of the church, and the patron of its just but injured cause: The first of the chief princes, v. 13. Some understand it of a created angel, but an archangel of the highest order, 1 Th. 4:16; Jude 9. Others think that Michael the archangel is no other than Christ himself, the angel of the covenant, and the Lord of the angels, he whom Daniel saw in vision, v. 5.

John Wesley - Chapter XII - A promise of deliverance, and of a joyful resurrection, ver. 1 - 4. A conference concerning the time of these events, ver. 5 - 7. An answer to Daniel's enquiry, ver. 8 - 13.1 For the children - The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. A time of trouble - A the siege of Jerusalem, before the final judgment. The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time of Christ, from his first, to his last coming.

Wesley on Daniel 10:21 Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it.

Geneva Study Bible - Da 12:1 - And at that {a} time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
(a) The angel here notes two things: first that the Church will be in great affliction and trouble at Christ's coming, and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel.

Da 10:1310:13 But the {h} prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, {i} Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. (h) Meaning Cambyses, who reigned in his father's absence, and did not only for this time hinder the building of the temple, but would have further raged, if God had not sent me to resist him: and therefore I have stayed for the profit of the Church. (i) Even though God could by one angel destroy all the world, yet to assure his children of his love he sends forth double power, even
Michael, that is, Christ Jesus the head of angels.

"The two passages in the New Testament, in which Michael is mentioned, serve to confirm the result already arrived at. That the Michael referred to in Rev. xii. 7 is no other than the Logos, has already been proved in my commentary upon that passage. Hofmann (Schriftbeweis i., p. 296) objects to this explanation, and says, 'in this case it is impossible to imagine why the Archangel should be mentioned as fighting with the dragon, and not the child that was caught up to the throne of God.' But we have already replied to this in the commentary, where we said, 'if Michael be Christ, the question arises why Michael is mentioned here instead of Christ'. The answer to this is, that the name Michael [Who is like God?, that is, 'Who dares to claim that they are like God?'] contains in itself an intimation that the work referred to here, the decisive victory over Satan, belongs to Christ, not as human, but rather as divine [compare 1 John iii. 8]. Moreover, this name forms a connecting link between the Old Testament and the New. Even in the Old Testament, Michael is represented as the great prince, who fights on
behalf of the Church (Dan. xii. 1).' The conflict there alluded to was a prediction and prelude of the one mentioned hero. The further objections offered by Hofmann rest upon his very remarkable interpretation of chap. xii., which is not likely to be adopted by any who are capable of examining for themselves."

�Ernst Wilhelm Henstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on Messianic Predictions, 1836-9, Vol. IV, pp. 304-5 (in the T. & T. Clark publication; p. 269 in the Kregel publication). - Paul says, 'For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God" and the dead in Christ will rise first.' I Thes. iv. 16. From this text it appears that when the Lord shall descend with a shout, his voice will be that of the Archangel, or head Messenger; therefore the Lord must be that head Messenger. This text says the dead shall rise at the voice of the Archangel; and Christ affirms that the dead shall be raised by his voice. He says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." John v. 26, 28, 29.

Brown's Dictionary (A Calvinist), Wood's Dictionary (Methodist), Buck's Theological Dictionary, Butterworh, Cruden and Taylor in their concordances, Doctor Coke, a Methodist bishop in his notes on the Bible, Winchester in his 152 page of the first volume of his lectures on the prophecies, Whitefield, in his sermon on the burning bush, Bunyan in the Cincinnati edition, page 54, Guyse in his Paraphrase on the New testament on Rev. xii. 7, Doctor Watts in his [G]lories of Christ, pps. 200-2, 218, 223, and 224. Thomas Scott in his notes on the Bible. All agree with me. Michael is the same as Jesus. They are one and the same.

Martin Werner, The Formation of Christian Dogma, p. 133 - "the influence of the late-Jewish speculation about the archangel Michael in the earlier period of Post-Apostolic Christianity helped to preserve the Angel-Christology: indeed it even provided new stimulus for the further development of Christology. In his day Wilhelm Bousset had already alluded to the fact, being the first to do so, in his writing about the 'Antichrist'. The figure of the archangel Michael had perhaps already influenced Philo's speculation about the Logos, and Philo bad affected Christian authors of the Post-Apostolic period. in any case Philo did not identify the Logos with the Messiah, but with an archangel,s and he predicated to him that which was appropriate to the archangel Michael. Thus the late-Jewish speculation about Michael (which imparted Messianic traits to the archangel), the Philonic Logos-doctrine and the PostApostolic Logos-Christology appear in a sequence and indicate that the late-Jewish doctrine of angels was their common presupposition."

 

[Sajara]

So there was a movement in the protestants to believe that Jesus and the Archangel were the same. I didn't know that. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I was wrong that only the Jehovas believed that Jesus and Michael were the same.

While the wall of text is interesting in regards of the history of how people have interpreted the Bible, I find what the Bible says on this regard to be more interesting, so let's discuss what you think of the following:

Jude 1 New International Version (NIV)

1 Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James,

To those who have been called, who are loved in God the Father and kept for[a] Jesus Christ:

2 Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.

The Sin and Doom of Ungodly People
3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. 4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[c] at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

8 In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings. 9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”[d] 10 Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand, and the very things they do understand by instinct—as irrational animals do—will destroy them.

11 Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion.

12 These people are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. 13 They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15 to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”[e] 16 These people are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.

A Call to Persevere
17 But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. 18 They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” 19 These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.

20 But you, dear friends, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.

22 Be merciful to those who doubt; 23 save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.[f]

Doxology
24 To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— 25 to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

I included all of Jude here because of the references to who the Lord is here. Specifically, in Jude 1:4, the Lord is referring to Jesus as the ONLY master and Lord.

This is important because when Michael is mentioned later, Michael refers to the Lord. From the context of the passage, I am led to believe that Michael is referring to Jesus.

If they are one and the same, this is a really weird passage. If Michael is referring to God as the Lord (which happens often in the Bible, I'll give you that), then Jude 1:4 is odd a few verses earlier.


Also in Rev 12:7-10, Michael is fighting Satan in heaven only to cast Satan down. The voice that speaks in Heaven is presumed to be Michael from the context (imho). It would be odd that he'd again call himself the Christ rather than just say 'by my own power'...

The only place where I might see confusion is in Thessalonians 4:13-18 when it says that Jesus speaks with the voice of an archangel

But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. ...

I'd take this to mean that the voice of command, the voice of an archangel, and the sound of the trumpet of God are the Lord's personnel music score as he comes down from heaven...but that's just me.



So, once again...rather than posting a wall of text of what other people think, can you sum up in your own words why you think Michael and Jesus are one and the same and use passages from your Bible to support this?

Or you can tell me why the three passages I picked don't make sense?

 

[Sajara]

So you're a Jehovah's Witness? They're the ones that thought Michael and Jesus were one and the same. Nowhere in the Bible does it say this. In fact, the distinction between angel and man is pretty clear from the Bible.

You also didn't answer fta's question with your copy and paste reply...

I don't know, you tell me. Who cares? And why? go through it. Point it all out to me. I'm tired of explaining this stuff . . . say . . . aren't you the dude that looks like a lady? I didn't mean anything by that. You're a good kid. But, uh, the Jehovah's Witness thing you got wrong. Let me show you.

Oh, and see how a mature adult handles the fact that he was wrong in the post above...

Also, you seem to care? You asked for a challenge. Don't get all bent out of shape when someone accepts your challenge and you don't have an answer. It is convenient that you suddenly get 'tired' of this stuff and resort to a juvenile name-calling/ad-hom (in a way at least) when you get called out. Also, I'm hardly a kid at 32 and a father of two.

As for pointing it out to you...fta did, and then I noted that fta did...seemed very clear to me what fta was asking. If you are having trouble reading for comprehension then your whole ministry really comes in question.

 

[fta]

So, where did Jesus first appear to his male disciples after his Resurrection? On a mountain in Galilee as Matthew says? Or in Emmaus/Jerusalem (80 miles away from Galilee) as Luke and John say? Did the risen Jesus order the disciples to wait in Jerusalem (Luke 24:49), or did he tell them to go to Galilee (Matthew 28:10)?

Do I take it you are unable or unwilling to explain what appears to be a glaring contradiction in regard to the most important miracle in history?

 

[Kharakov]

So, where did Jesus first appear to his male disciples after his Resurrection? On a mountain in Galilee as Matthew says? Or in Emmaus/Jerusalem (80 miles away from Galilee) as Luke and John say? Did the risen Jesus order the disciples to wait in Jerusalem (Luke 24:49), or did he tell them to go to Galilee (Matthew 28:10)?

Do I take it you are unable or unwilling to explain what appears to be a glaring contradiction in regard to the most important miracle in history?

Dude, what about the Many Jesuses Interpretation of the Bible? You can't give all the freedom to bullshit to science....

 

[BarryM]

The skeptic's challenge is this. Produce any alleged contradictions, imperfections, historical or scientific inaccuracies you perceive in the Bible and I will successfully refute them. The only rule is that you can give only one at a time per person. When I answer your first then you can provide a second if you wish.

Inaccuracy number 1 - the Bible claims the existence of a being called God, Jehova, Yahweh etc. in fact the Bible is based on the existence of such a being. This is incorrect, no such being as described in the Bible exists, successfully refute this by conclusively showing the existence of God

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The skeptic's challenge is this. Produce any alleged contradictions, imperfections, historical or scientific inaccuracies you perceive in the Bible and I will successfully refute them. The only rule is that you can give only one at a time per person. When I answer your first then you can provide a second if you wish.

Okay, I will go with "imperfections", and in particular, moral imperfections. There are so many that it's hard to pick one.
But let's see, for example:

22:23 If there be a young lady who is a virgin pledged to be married to a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 22:24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones; the lady, because she didn't cry, being in the city; and the man, because he has humbled his neighbor's wife: so you shall put away the evil from the midst of you. 22:25 But if the man find the lady who is pledged to be married in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only who lay with her shall die: 22:26 but to the lady you shall do nothing; there is in the lady no sin worthy of death: for as when a man rises against his neighbor, and kills him, even so is this matter; 22:27 for he found her in the field, the pledged to be married lady cried, and there was none to save her. 22:28 If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 22:29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the lady's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.

So, let’s assess some of the dispositions contained in Old Testament Law:

a. If a man has sex with a woman “pledged to be married to a husband”, and they’re in a city and she does not cry, they are both stoned to death. Moreover, it is implied that in that case, in particular she committed an immoral action that merits that punishment.

In other words, it’s implied that she deserves the death penalty, and furthermore, that she deserves the suffering of being stoned before dying.

In context, it’s apparent that there is an assumption that because she did not cry, she consented to having sex with the man in question. However, it is also apparent that even if she did not cry, she may well not have consented to having sex with him. Maybe the man raped her and (for instance) had a knife on her throat, she was terrified, etc. There are a number of possibilities. Also, incidentally, even if, in practice, legally proving that she had not cried was difficult, the fact remains that if that was legally proven, there was nowhere near evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she had consented to having sex with him.

It is true that the biblical passage says ‘forces her’ - or makes similar distinctions in other translations – in the case in which he finds her in the field, and she’s not punished in that case, while the text does not mention force in the case in which they’re in the city and she does not cry. However, it seems that, in context, that is plausibly because the fact that she does not cry is considered conclusive evidence of consent. But if she didn’t cry and didn’t consent, either, she was a victim of rape, and was apparently then stoned to death, following the biblical command.

Still, let’s grant that this particular command only applies to cases of consensual sex.

Even if so, then what the man and the woman who have consensual sex with each other are guilty of – if anything – depends on the case:

a.1. If she was ‘pledged’ to another man by her father, without her consent, and she decided to have sex with someone else instead, she was not guilty of anything for having sex with him. While legally she was guilty of a crime punishable by death by stoning, morally, she was not morally guilty. Rather, the law was very unjust.

As for the man who had consensual sex with her, in that case he wasn’t guilty for having sex with her, either. At most, each of them may have been guilty of things like, say, placing the other person in danger for having sex with that person in a social environment in which there is an appalling law that punishes consensual sex with death by stoning, under those circumstances. But they did not deserve to be stoned to death for that, obviously. What was evil was the law in question.

a.2. If she freely consented to marrying a man, and then cheated on him with another man, then usually that would have been immoral, even though there are exceptions. But let’s say that this was not an exception. Then, she behaved immorally. As for the man who had sex with her, that depends on the case. But in any event, neither her nor her lover deserved to be stoned to death for their behavior. Maybe she deserved to have the marriage canceled and get no money in compensation for the cancellation, and to be told that she had behaved immorally, but that’s about it. Even very short term imprisonment [if available], or flogging, would have been very immoral, and stoning her to death was just monstrous.

Yet, in all those cases and others, the Bible demands that she and her lover be stoned to death for their behavior, and implies that they do deserve it, since:

a. i. The Bible imposes death by stoning as the punishment, and in context, the biblical text implies that all of the punishments it imposes are deserved,

a. ii. Specifically, the Bible points out that the woman who is found outside the city and forced does not commit any action that deserves the death penalty. The contrast is clear, and so it’s implicit that the woman who is in the city and does not cry deserves the death penalty, according to Yahweh. That alone wouldn’t on its own entail that – according to Yahweh – she deserves the death penalty by means of stoning – there are different means of execution, after all -, but given context, it’s clear that death by stoning is implicitly held to be just.

So, Yahweh here makes grossly false moral implications, and gives commands that are profoundly unjust, and which the ancient Israelites who were in a position to decide whether to follow them should have disobeyed, given that there was no other justification available.

On that note, and for example, if there had been a conclusively credible threat by Yahweh that he would torture the lovers for eternity unless other people stoned them to death, that would plausibly justify stoning them to death in order to save them from that fate at the hands of that monster, but of course it would not justify willingly stoning them to death, or believing that they deserved to be stoned to death, or that Yahweh was not a moral monster – let alone believing that he is morally good, and let alone morally perfect.

In the biblical context, however, there was no justification for following those morally abhorrent commands, nor for believing Yahweh’s false moral implications that they deserved to be stoned to death.

b. If a man finds a woman outside the city and rapes her, he is to be stoned to death, and she is not punished.

In those times, they did not have resources for a prison system that would be able to deal with such rapists, and a corporal punishment for such an act of rape would plausibly have been justified.

However, even then, stoning him to death would have been excessive. Even if the death penalty was justified – which is debatable, but let’s say that it was -, stoning him to death would have been too much. There are other means of execution that are less brutal.

However, there is a more serious moral problem with this disposition. So, let’s say for the sake of the argument that he deserved to be stoned to death for the act of rape he committed. The problem here is that he wasn’t being punished for rape. He was being punished for having sex with a woman ‘pledged’ to another man, regardless of whether she consented.

That is clearly shown by the facts that:

b. i. The punishment for him – namely, to be stoned to death – is the same as the punishment for consensual sex with a woman ‘pledged’ to another man, in the case considered in a., and which is addressed in the same biblical context. In that other case, her – unjustly presumed, but still presumed – consent does not alter the punishment for him, which is also to be stoned to death.

b. ii. In case of rape of a virgin woman who is not ‘pledged’ to another man, Deuteronomy does not impose the punishment of being stoned to death for the rapist. In fact, if Deuteronomy 22:28 does not include cases of rape, then no punishment is imposed for the rapist in that case. And if Deuteronomy 22:28 includes cases of rape, then the rapist only has to pay a sum of money to the victim’s father, and then marry his victim.

Given the above, it’s clear that stoning to death is a punishment imposed on a man for sexual penetration of a woman whose father had ‘pledged’ her to another man, regardless of whether she consented to the sexual penetration in question – or, for that matter, to being pledged to that other man.

It’s also a punishment imposed on a woman whose father ‘pledged’ her to a man, for having consensual sex with a different man before she’s handed over to the man her father pledged her to, regardless of whether she consented to being ‘pledged’, and under the unreasonable assumption that if she did not cry, then she consented to sex.

 

[KeepTalking]

I don't suppose you would take the word of M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774) or The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible (Revised Edition of 1944, page 198, column 1) as an unbiased source, either? What possible unbiased source would be commenting on such a thing, Richard Dawkins? And what would you expect them to know?

A non-Christian Jewish source would be acceptable. The closer to the first century, the better. I would expect them to have a better grasp of their own genealogical practices than Christian sources from the 19th and 20th centuries.

The Hebrew word for son, ben, and the Greek word for the same, huios, are used in a broader sense than an immediate male offspring. They can mean adopted son (Exodus 2:10 / John 1:45) a descendant like a grandson or great-grandson (Exodus 1:7 / 2 Chronicles 35:14 / Jeremiah 35:16 / Matthew 12:23) or a son-in-law (1 Chronicles 3:17 / Luke 3:27) Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah and the son-in-law of Neri.

An extra biblical non-Christian, and therefor non-apologetic, source would be the appropriate source to appeal to for the examination of how the word was and was not used. An early Jewish source would be preferable.

First off, if you want to present an unbroken line from an ancestor to a descendant, yes, you do need to have everyone in that line listed in the genealogy.

No, you do not. Much earlier, Ezra, when listing his genealogy (Ezra 7:1-5) was missing several names that are found at 1 Chronicles 6:3-14. It could have been to shorten the list, or that he used only familiar names. If you are giving the descendants of a famous man, like George Washington, you don't need to give every name to establish connection. For example, if you know one man is a man's father's great grandfather was connected to Washington you don't need to establish that by listing the grandfather and great-grandfather.

Show me an unbiased (non-biblical, non-Christian, and non-apologetic) genealogical expert who agrees with you on this.

 

[KeepTalking]

Please review my post, I asked for an unbiased source. Wikipedia has this to say about Godet:

Think about what you are asking me to do. Give a source that is unbiased implies what?

I have hopefully covered this well enough in my previous post.

Okay, let's say I trust Godet as a source, even though he is not an unbiased source. The Jewish adage is "The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant". Unfortunately, we are not talking about Mary's descendants, but rather her ancestors (though I will note that at least one of her descendants, Jesus, is certainly known as her descendant in the Bible). Do you have any reference (hopefully unbiased) that shows a Jewish woman of the 1st century would have her ancestry transferred to her husband when describing that husbands ancestry?

You do realize that the Bible's chronology, which Matthew and Luke undoubtedly used to comprise their lists, is exactly what you are asking for?

No, I am looking for any non-biblical, non-Christian, non-apologetic source that agrees that this was common practice. A Jewish genealogical source would be appropriate. Once again, however, I will note that the genealogy in question would relate to Mary's ancestors, not her descendants. That particular practice is already thrown out the window, as the gospels very specifically name her as Jesus' mother, and thus Jesus as her descendant.

Yes, it simply repeats the assertion that it is not necessary to show an unbroken line of ancestry to prove one's ancestral link to an ancient King, then goes on to mention that three kings were removed from the ancestral line because the first in their line was naughty. My first point still stands, if you want to prove an ancestral link to anyone, you must show the entire unbroken line. Skipping Kings because you don't like them simply won't do. Also, removing these three Kings from the lineage still leaves us with a difference of about a dozen generations, which is still over a 200 year difference between the two lineages.

I reiterate that I do not intend to let this go until you have satisfactorily met my challenge.

I've pretty much addressed this in the first response. Let's say you have Jesus' genealogy in front of you and you are a Pharisee or Sadducee who is expecting the Messiah at that time. You see that a man before the naughty king is there and then you see someone who the records show is an ancestor of the one before that naughty king. Why would you need the naughty king listed? Take out any number of similar people over a period of 2 or 3 thousand years and the same applies. You do not need all of the names when comparing them to the genealogical record.

You previously noted your dislike for speculation in these discussions. So, let's not speculate. Show me unbiased expert genealogical sources for this.

 

[skepticalbip]

The skeptic's challenge is this. Produce any alleged contradictions, imperfections, historical or scientific inaccuracies you perceive in the Bible and I will successfully refute them. The only rule is that you can give only one at a time per person. When I answer your first then you can provide a second if you wish.

Since you have miserably failed at successfully refuting them, would you accept a challenge to Biblical literalists?

Can you cite just one verifiable statement in the Bible that wasn't common knowledge to the typical goat herders at the time?

 

[bigfield]

Just reposting this as DLH failed to answer:

I don't think I get your reasoning there. Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. At what period are you referring to in which it couldn't be complete, and how did you derive at 4.6 billion years.

Genesis 1:1-3 states that God created the earth in 'the beginning', and that the earth existed before light existed.

However, light has existed since the first few seconds of the Big Bang, but the earth did not form until approximately nine billion years after the Big Bang.

If you want to know where I got Earth's age, check the source I provided in my previous post.

You are saying that they must have been created at the same time from Genesis 1:1? At that time, whatever time that was, they were both compete.

Genesis 1:1 states that both the earth was created before light was created. That is contradictory to science.

ETA:

The claim that the earth was created at the "beginning" of the Universe is just one of several scientific inaccuracies in Genesis 1.

 

[KeepTalking]

Yeah, I don't think it will ever get answered at this point. He logged in a couple of days ago, but neglected to post. I guess the crushing defeat he received here was just too much for him.

 

[DLH]

Yeah, I don't think it will ever get answered at this point. He logged in a couple of days ago, but neglected to post. I guess the crushing defeat he received here was just too much for him.

No. Uhm. I don't think that you understand fully the exchange in which we are obliged.

I stated my position and you asked for an impractical confirmation. I couldn't ask for anything more. It's done.

 

[DLH]

Just reposting this as DLH failed to answer:

Genesis 1:1-3 states that God created the earth in 'the beginning', and that the earth existed before light existed.

However, light has existed since the first few seconds of the Big Bang, but the earth did not form until approximately nine billion years after the Big Bang.

If you want to know where I got Earth's age, check the source I provided in my previous post.

You are saying that they must have been created at the same time from Genesis 1:1? At that time, whatever time that was, they were both compete.

Genesis 1:1 states that both the earth was created before light was created. That is contradictory to science.

ETA:

The claim that the earth was created at the "beginning" of the Universe is just one of several scientific inaccuracies in Genesis 1.

I'm not going to go through this mess of quotes, science guy, but. Just read this Pathway Machine | The Skeptic's Study Bible: Genesis 1 Which I wrote. Is mine. And answers all of your grievances.

 

[Kharakov]

Can you cite just one verifiable statement in the Bible that wasn't common knowledge to the typical goat herders at the time?

What about a bottom up evolutionary hierarchy, with the voice of the creator of many united with the voice of all created?

G's us told legion where to go, as gravity herds all into groups.

 

[KeepTalking]

Yeah, I don't think it will ever get answered at this point. He logged in a couple of days ago, but neglected to post. I guess the crushing defeat he received here was just too much for him.

No. Uhm. I don't think that you understand fully the exchange in which we are obliged.

I stated my position and you asked for an impractical confirmation. I couldn't ask for anything more. It's done.

What is so impractical about asking for actual Jewish sources for how Jewish genealogy is approached? I'm sorry, but I don't trust Christian sources to represent the truth with regard to the Bible, they have a terrible track record in that regard.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I don't trust Christian sources to represent the truth with regard to the Bible, they have a terrible track record in that regard.

But DLH is a true free thinker. He wouldn't quote Christain sources unless he had some independent means to verify their story, would he?

 

[DLH]

No. Uhm. I don't think that you understand fully the exchange in which we are obliged.

I stated my position and you asked for an impractical confirmation. I couldn't ask for anything more. It's done.

What is so impractical about asking for actual Jewish sources for how Jewish genealogy is approached? I'm sorry, but I don't trust Christian sources to represent the truth with regard to the Bible, they have a terrible track record in that regard.

What's so impractical about it? Number 1, you could do it yourself. Number 2, I already had given one and you rejected it. Number 3 How many Jewish genealogical sources would you imagine exist that are unbiased from a Biblical and theological perspective, Number 4, what makes them any more accurate than anyone else?