You Say You Want An Evolution!

[JonathanL]

Hmm. At least some errors exist because the authors weren't overly excited about exactitude.
I don't have a problem with that, but there are plenty who would.

I think Rogue's point is that calling these things "errors" would be an "error", exactly because the author(s) "weren't overly excited about exactitude.". If the intention of the author(s) wasn't to provide a "precise historical, sequential order" of things, then claiming that the biblical record is in error, or in conflict with cosmology/geology/biology etc. would be incorrect, because they never intended for the readers to understand the events of the text as happening in a "precise historical, sequential order".

Of course, as someone who believes that the creation story accurately, in both manner and chronology, but not to very great detail, describes how God created the universe I don't agree with that interpretation, although I do think that from the assumptions that someone like Rogue brings to the text when he reads it it is a valid interpretation.

Or at the very least I've yet to see an argument convincing enough to persuade me that it is not a valid interpretation, valid under the sort of assumptions that someone like Rogue has, that is.

[tabibito]

I think Rogue's point is that calling these things "errors" would be an "error", exactly because the author(s) "weren't overly excited about exactitude.". If the intention of the author(s) wasn't to provide a "precise historical, sequential order" of things, then claiming that the biblical record is in error, or in conflict with cosmology/geology/biology etc. would be incorrect, because they never intended for the readers to understand the events of the text as happening in a "precise historical, sequential order".

Of course, as someone who believes that the creation story accurately, in both manner and chronology, but not to very great detail, describes how God created the universe I don't agree with that interpretation, although I do think that from the assumptions that someone like Rogue brings to the text when he reads it it is a valid interpretation.

Or at the very least I've yet to see an argument convincing enough to persuade me that it is not a valid interpretation, valid under the sort of assumptions that someone like Rogue has, that is.

Good and convincing arguments can be advanced explaining the origin of an error, including a corrupted copy of a text for which the original is no longer available. Those arguments have no impact on the physical existence of whatever error may be under review, nor will those explanations eliminate conflicts in the Biblical record. The simplest demonstration of that process is the conflict between Luke's and Matthew's genealogies for Jesus. Those accounts don't agree on even the identity of Joseph's father. It can't be said that Matthew intended his account to be understood as anything other than factual ... he stipulates that there are 14x3 generations in the line from Abraham to Jesus. Matthew's account (so tis said*) of the line of succession from David to the exile is in conflict with the Old Testament record. Finding reasons, however solid, for those errors doesn't eliminate the existence of those errors. Those reasons do no more than reduce the significance of the errors (perhaps to zero). Perhaps "inaccuracy" would be a more palatable term than "error," but there is no practical difference between the two.

* I haven't personally checked the claim that Matthew managed to drop two kings from the line.

[Mountain Man]

Hmm. At least some errors exist because the authors weren't overly excited about exactitude.
I don't have a problem with that, but there are plenty who would.

It's a mistake to call them errors. As the Chicago Statement puts it, "When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it."

[tabibito]

It's a mistake to call them errors. As the Chicago Statement puts it, "When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it."

Do we find evidence that, in the society of first century Judah, imprecision of a genealogy was expected or aimed at?

[JonathanL]

Do we find evidence that, in the society of first century Judah, imprecision of a genealogy was expected or aimed at?

That's not really what the statement is saying. Not being too concerned with the precision of something doesn't mean you're purposefully trying to aim for imprecision.

[Mountain Man]

Do we find evidence that, in the society of first century Judah, imprecision of a genealogy was expected or aimed at?

This will explain better than I can:

Source: Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of His penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (e.g., the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called "phenomena" of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

© Copyright Original Source

[rogue06]

This will explain better than I can:

Source: Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of His penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (e.g., the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called "phenomena" of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

© Copyright Original Source

They also said

We further affirm that in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations.

[tabibito]

This will explain better than I can:

Source: Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of His penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (e.g., the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called "phenomena" of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

© Copyright Original Source

Do we find evidence that, in the society of first century Judah, imprecision of a genealogy was expected or aimed at?

The applicable section for a genealogy is history. The genealogy supplied by Matthew is demonstrably inaccurate. Nothing in the Bible resolves its conflict with Luke and with the Old Testament records.

We further affirm that in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations.

That's a nice touch. But even that declaration acknowledges (to a limited extent) the facts.

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appear to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

[JonathanL]

Good and convincing arguments can be advanced explaining the origin of an error, including a corrupted copy of a text for which the original is no longer available. Those arguments have no impact on the physical existence of whatever error may be under review, nor will those explanations eliminate conflicts in the Biblical record. The simplest demonstration of that process is the conflict between Luke's and Matthew's genealogies for Jesus. Those accounts don't agree on even the identity of Joseph's father. It can't be said that Matthew intended his account to be understood as anything other than factual ... he stipulates that there are 14x3 generations in the line from Abraham to Jesus. Matthew's account (so tis said*) of the line of succession from David to the exile is in conflict with the Old Testament record. Finding reasons, however solid, for those errors doesn't eliminate the existence of those errors. Those reasons do no more than reduce the significance of the errors (perhaps to zero). Perhaps "inaccuracy" would be a more palatable term than "error," but there is no practical difference between the two.

* I haven't personally checked the claim that Matthew managed to drop two kings from the line.

I mean, the very fact that the father of Joseph is different in either genealogy should be a warning sign that Matthew and Luke are presenting genealogies for two different family lines.

It could be a case of levirate marriage, where Heli and Jacob were brothers/half-brothers, one of them marrying a woman, but dying childless, obligating the surviving brother to marry the widow in order to produce a legal heir to the deceased sibling. In that case one (the deceased) would be the legal parent of Joseph, while the other, surviving brother, would be his biological parent.

Another alternative is that one genealogy is actually Mary's genealogy, while the other is Joseph's. In that case either Heli or Jacob would be the biological father of Joseph, while the other, while biologically Mary's father, would be also be counted as the father (in a legal sense) of Joseph. If Mary's father only fathered daughter(s) then there would be a precedent for this kind of thing in Num 27:1-11 and Num 36:1-12. (The story of Zelophehad's daughters).

[JonathanL]

Other bible passages that could be relevant when it comes to considering whether "adoption through marriage" could be a valid way to resolve the apparent issue of Matthew's and Luke's genealogies being in conflict, are 1 Chron 2:34-41, where Sheshan, who did not have any sons, gives his daughter in marriage to his Egyptian slave/servant, in order to produce heirs for him, and Ezra 2:61ff where we have the case of the sons/descendants of Barzillai, who although they were not actual sons/descendants of Barzillai, are considered so through marriage with Barzillai's daughters.

http://www.christianthinktank.com/fabprof4.html <-- The article which made me aware that these and the bible passages in my previous post could possibly be of relevance to the issue.

[tabibito]

I mean, the very fact that the father of Joseph is different in either genealogy should be a warning sign that Matthew and Luke are presenting genealogies for two different family lines.

It could be a case of levirate marriage, where Heli and Jacob were brothers/half-brothers, one of them marrying a woman, but dying childless, obligating the surviving brother to marry the widow in order to produce a legal heir to the deceased sibling. In that case one (the deceased) would be the legal parent of Joseph, while the other, surviving brother, would be his biological parent.

Except that "begat" precludes it - in Levirate marriage, the deceased brother doesn't do the begetting. The living brother still does the begetting (on the deceased brother's behalf.)

Another alternative is that one genealogy is actually Mary's genealogy, while the other is Joseph's. In that case either Heli or Jacob would be the biological father of Joseph, while the other, while biologically Mary's father, would be also be counted as the father (in a legal sense) of Joseph. If Mary's father only fathered daughter(s) then there would be a precedent for this kind of thing in Num 27:1-11 and Num 36:1-12. (The story of Zelophehad's daughters).

Num 27:1-11 is about daughters inheriting where there is no son to receive the inheritance, with rules being established for similar circumstances that might occur in the future. Nothing in the passage mentions the possibility of a man being considered "begotten" when he is not the biological direct descendant; there isn't even any mention of a man taking the position of a (legally instated) son when he marries an inheriting daughter. In short, Num 27:1-11 establishes no precedent for Mary's father to be called Joseph's father. Numbers 36:1-12 shows that property rights transfer to the husband upon marriage to an inheriting daughter. The inheriting daughter is prevented from marrying outside the tribe as a matter of preventing tribal lands from being lost. Again - nothing to do with the husband becoming a legally instated son of her father. He is still the son-in-law.

And the missing two generations (if the claim is true) in line of succession from David to the exile remain unaccounted for - together with the declaration of 14 generations between David and the exile.

Even if one of the resolutions regarding the father could be shown valid, the matter of the count of generations is a separate and unresolved issue.

And with all that - the Chicago statement on Biblical Inerrancy declares

the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

[JonathanL]

Except that "begat" precludes it - in Levirate marriage, the deceased brother doesn't do the begetting. The living brother still does the begetting (on the deceased brother's behalf.)

Well, if the Levirate marriage solution is the correct one (and I'm not even convinced it is, I just provided it as an alternative), then the term "begat", or "fathered" doesn't really exclude it as an option at all. All it would tell us is that Matthew gives us Joseph's biological father ("Jacob begat Joseph"), while Luke gives us his legal father ("Joseph, the son of Heli"). While I'm not personally convinced of the Levirate marriage solution, your objection is simply not valid.

Num 27:1-11 is about daughters inheriting where there is no son to receive the inheritance, with rules being established for similar circumstances that might occur in the future. Nothing in the passage mentions the possibility of a man being considered "begotten" when he is not the biological direct descendant; there isn't even any mention of a man taking the position of a (legally instated) son when he marries an inheriting daughter. In short, Num 27:1-11 establishes no precedent for Mary's father to be called Joseph's father. Numbers 36:1-12 shows that property rights transfer to the husband upon marriage to an inheriting daughter. The inheriting daughter is prevented from marrying outside the tribe as a matter of preventing tribal lands from being lost. Again - nothing to do with the husband becoming a legally instated son of her father. He is still the son-in-law.

First of all, your obsession about the term "begat" is making you miss the bigger picture. Matthew uses the word translated as "begat", true, but Luke doesn't, so on that count your objection loses it's entire force.

When it comes to Number 27:1-11 and Numbers 36:1-12 it's true that it doesn't explicitly say that the men who married Zelophehad's daughters were counted as his sons, but that's only an issue if you ignore the passages that I (or rather the article which I referenced) provided to show that at least in some cases marrying the daughter of a man with no sons meant becoming the legal heir/descendant/son of that man. The men mentioned in Ezra 2:61 where not biologically sons of Barzillai, but they were still counted as such via marriage to his daughters.

And the missing two generations (if the claim is true) in line of succession from David to the exile remain unaccounted for - together with the declaration of 14 generations between David and the exile.

Even if one of the resolutions regarding the father could be shown valid, the matter of the count of generations is a separate and unresolved issue.

The missing generations in Matthew's genealogy doesn't really provide an issue, since the word "begat" doesn't necessitate a father-to-son relationship between the "begotter" and the "begotten". A grandson could also be "begotten" by his grandfather. As long as there was a direct line of descent then X could be considered to have "begotten" Y. So Matthew omitting a few people from his genealogy, for rhetorical/pedagogical (as the article I'm referencing puts it) purposes, does not show a contradiction between Matthew's genealogy and the OT. It's possible he omitted some names in order to make the list easier to memorize, and as for the 3x14 that could just be Matthew making a rhetorical point through gematria (David in Hebrew having a number value of 14).

[tabibito]

Other bible passages that could be relevant when it comes to considering whether "adoption through marriage" could be a valid way to resolve the apparent issue of Matthew's and Luke's genealogies being in conflict, are 1 Chron 2:34-41, where Sheshan, who did not have any sons, gives his daughter in marriage to his Egyptian slave/servant, in order to produce heirs for him

Jarha is never declared a son to Sheshan. It might even be logical to assume that the daughter was given to the Sheshan (a member of the household) in order to retain the family line, for all that no reason is given.

, and Ezra 2:61ff where we have the case of the sons/descendants of Barzillai, who although they were not actual sons/descendants of Barzillai, are considered so through marriage with Barzillai's daughters.

Descendants of Habaiah, Hakkoz, and Barzillai, who married one of the daughters of Barzillai from Gilead and took that name. Barzillai the Gileadite had a daughter. The man who married his daughter assumed the name of her father: he was thereafter called Barzillai. Descendants of Barzillai II are listed, along with descendants of Habaiah and Hakkoz. Nothing here says or even remotely intimates that Barzillai II is legally instituted as a son to Barzillai.

http://www.christianthinktank.com/fabprof4.html <-- The article which made me aware that these and the bible passages in my previous post could possibly be of relevance to the issue.

[JonathanL]

And with all that - the Chicago statement on Biblical Inerrancy declares

the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

And I agree with that statement.

But the errors you're claiming to be in the genealogies simply haven't been demonstrated.

[JonathanL]

Jarha is never declared a son to Sheshan. It might even be logical to assume that the daughter was given to the Sheshan (a member of the household) in order to retain the family line, for all that no reason is given.

I mean, if you read the passage in complete isolation from the rest of the OT, then sure, it's possible to ignore the implications of this passage, but that's not really a charitable way to read the bible in my opinion.

Descendants of Habaiah, Hakkoz, and Barzillai, who married one of the daughters of Barzillai from Gilead and took that name. Barzillai the Gileadite had a daughter. The man who married his daughter assumed the name of her father: he was thereafter called Barzillai. Descendants of Barzillai II are listed, along with descendants of Habaiah and Hakkoz. Nothing here says or even remotely intimates that Barzillai II is legally instituted as a son to Barzillai.

So taking the name of someone through marriage doesn't imply sonship? In any case a more literal translation would read "took their name", and not "took that name", which could imply that taking the name of Barzillai also meant "taking on the family name", so to speak.