[quote=Baz](I know this is an old thread but I just couldn't bare to leave his question unanswered.)

[quote=Infidel]Ok then. For the THIRD time......who was Jospeh's father?

Hi Baz, welcome to the discussion.

I disagree with the theory that you've put forward to explain away the inconsistency.

Dr. Henry M. Morris, in his "The Defender's Study Bible" purports that the neither of the authors of Matthew or Luke "could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record." In other words, 'they couldn't be wrong, so oe of them must have been talking about Mary.' This strikes me as a typical apologist attempt to reconcile the errors in the bible. Many other inconsistencies are readily apparent when the "gospels" are compared. This is just another one.

Why didn't one of them refer to Mary explicitly? This was no ordinary woman, this was allegedly the mother of Jesus. If the words for son and son-in-law were interchangeable, wouldn't it make total sense to clearly describe one genealogy as belonging to Mary and the other to Joseph, especially when the two are in different books written by different authors at different times? If both were described in the same book, then maybe the explanation would be more feasible.

How do you get on this "special list" of individuals and bloodlines that the Christian god apparently has?

And what about bountyx's theory that the words for father and grandfather were interchangeable, and thus one lineage made reference to Joseph's father and the other to his grandfather? Which would mean that Jesus did not descend from David, since Jospeh wasn't his father. Which theory is it?

Tanks for the welcome!

Why? Want to get on the special list? 0_o (wierd question)

And 'explain away?' I keep my answers basic. A large amount of skeptics seem to do all the explaining away.

*shrug* hey, I tried to help but it looks like you don't want the answer. Oh well...

(BTW. the focus wasn't Mary, that's why. I'm not trying to be an apologetic. I answered you but it just looks like you just don't like the answer. I hope God opens your heart soon because as it is now, it's unapproachable. You just have this compulsive inclination to disagree all the time. I have to get back to work so...)

Latah!

I don't think bountyx would like the answer either, cuz if your explanation is right his is wrong. Your belief in the theory you put forward doesn't make it right. If questioning a theory shows a "compulsive inclination to disagree" then I guess I'm guilty as charged. Skeptics don't explain away inconsistencies in the bible. They question the inerrancy of the bible because of the inconsistencies.

Your argument is that Atheists claim the universe is an effect without a cause since they don't believe in God and don't say what created the universe.
The truth is that science has not yet explained what caused the "big bang" but they do not claim it is without cause.
On the other hand, your God is an effect without a cause by your own admission.
When you realize why you reject the existence of all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours. All religion is myth and superstition.

It is a simple rule of evidetial logic that you cannot prove a negative. It is therefore the theist, with his assertion of god, who holds the burden of proof.

How can you believe that an omniscient god would create imperfect beings and then punish them for making mistakes?