Luke 3:23 ( Matthew 1: 16) ( Could you please clarify what went wrong here? Also,see 2 Samuel 24:9 and 1 Chronicle 21:5 This is the text that I found most appealing. I have a few errors and issues, but all I want is for this to be cleared.
Apologies. In my fourth paragraph, the number at "Judah in 2 Samuel is numbered 500", should read 500 thousand. My original figure was modified by the gremlin.
Hi John. Just on the matter in 2 Samuel & 1 Chronicles.
Even though the numbers differ greatly, there should be no reason to assume error or textual corruption. Joab undertook the work unwillingly & therefore performed it imperfectly. According to 1Chronicles 21:6, he refused altogether to number the tribes Levi and Benjamin; & according to 1 Chronicles 27:24 "he finished not," and no official record was made of the result: "neither was the number put in the account of the chronicles of king David."
I think that the numbers were, in part, mere estimates. Here (2 Samuel), Israel is said to be 8 hundred thousand, in 1 Chronicles, 1.1 million; but the latter probably includes an estimate (i.e. not an included number) of the omitted tribes of Benjamin and Levi, and perhaps of portions of other tribes.
On the other hand, Judah in 2 Samuel is numbered 500,000 (a round number like all the rest), and in 1 Chronicles, 470,000. The difference is due perhaps to an estimate of the officiating priests and Levities accounted to Judah.
Another possibility, (from 1 Chronicles 27), is that the regular army of 288,000 (twelve divisions of 24,000 each) is included in Israel in one case and excluded in the other. And that in the same way in regard to Judah, "the thirty" may have had command of a special body of 30,000. Possibly in one case, the descendants of the old Canaanites were reckoned (since it appears from 2 Chronicles 2:17, that David "had numbered them"), and in the other, they were excluded. There is no reason to doubt the general reliability of the numbers since we're not given all the considerations/calculations used in numbering them. In any case, it appears that a probable total population of five or six million is in order.
Just to reply to your question about Luke 3:23 & Matthew 1:16. The other verses in the OT I have no knowledge of.
As I have found this issue also and done some research and was lead to the answer. The generations from Babylon to Christ are to be fourteen as in Matthew 1:17. The way it is written is only thirteen if "Joseph", in Matthew 1:16, is Mary's "husband". First off we know something is up as the father of Joseph, Mary's husband, in Luke 3:23 is Heli. As that is his genealogy. In Matthew 1:16 it says it is Jacob.
In Matthew 1:16 what should be written is Jacob begat Joseph the "father" of Mary.
I don't know how this mix up happened as said it is only thirteen generations from Babylon to Christ as it is written. Which is wrong to the next verse. Changing "husband" to "father" makes the generations fourteen and in line with the next verse. Also we know Joseph's(Mary's husband) father is Heli not Jacob as stated.
One man had copies of original texts of "father" not "husband" for Matthew 1:16. In another language of coarse.
Are you claiming that the Bible is wrong simply because you don't currently understand the genealogy?
That seems like quite a logical leap and most Bible readers would disagree with such an assumption. When something isn't understood is it normal to only focus on 1 verse, and disregard what dozens of scriptures consistently say?
The Bible clearly says Joseph became the husband of Mary. That is an undisputed fact as far as I'm concerned and says this in Matthew 1:20, Matthew 1:16, etc.
It sounds like the question is who was Joseph's father? Jacob or Heli? Luke 3:23 or Matthew 1:16.
It's evident that Joseph is Heli's son-in-law. In Jewish culture it is not unusual for the son in law to be referred to simply as the son of his father in law. This custom is used in other scriptures in the Bible too where calling someone a 'son' is an endearing term, especially son-in-law.
Also, the genealogy in Matthew wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list, but a subset. Luke gave the complete genealogy and traced Christ's lineage through Mary, while Matthew traced it through Joseph.
Rather than assuming everything we don't understand is an error and spreading this around like poison, wouldn't it seem prudent to first pray and ask God for wisdom for things you don't understand, research it further and ask open questions, before trying to discredit the Bible in public based on false assumptions. Just like the fake news we see in the media today, the corrections and retractions never get the full coverage as the original falsehoods, so just like here, people likely read your remarks and drew a negative conclusion in their heart based on a false assumption and that is really sad to see this especially on a Bible website where we should be seeking God to understand the truth, not spreading lies.
What you claim as an 'error' in the Bible was just explained to you- did you read it? You claim you aren't discrediting the Bible but you double down and claim the Bible is in error. The Bible is not in error. Just because you don't understand something in the Bible doesn't mean by default you should just start attacking and discrediting it. If you want to understand something, don't you think asking a question or asking God is a better first step, before spreading your propaganda to others online about how you think the Bible is flawed?
This is a common misunderstanding and the explanation is easily found via online search on a number of different websites if you took a second to research it before posting your attacks. If you're closed off and have already decided what you want to believe, then what is your motive for posting your claims here? Your claim that a mysterious man found a mysterious text that said Joseph was Mary's father does not sound credible and why would that carry more weight than the many Bible verses clearly stating Joseph was the husband. The Bible is already translated accurately. Coming to a Bible site and making false claims about God's Word being in 'error' is beyond inappropriate.
Even though the numbers differ greatly, there should be no reason to assume error or textual corruption. Joab undertook the work unwillingly & therefore performed it imperfectly. According to 1Chronicles 21:6, he refused altogether to number the tribes Levi and Benjamin; & according to 1 Chronicles 27:24 "he finished not," and no official record was made of the result: "neither was the number put in the account of the chronicles of king David."
I think that the numbers were, in part, mere estimates. Here (2 Samuel), Israel is said to be 8 hundred thousand, in 1 Chronicles, 1.1 million; but the latter probably includes an estimate (i.e. not an included number) of the omitted tribes of Benjamin and Levi, and perhaps of portions of other tribes.
On the other hand, Judah in 2 Samuel is numbered 500,000 (a round number like all the rest), and in 1 Chronicles, 470,000. The difference is due perhaps to an estimate of the officiating priests and Levities accounted to Judah.
Another possibility, (from 1 Chronicles 27), is that the regular army of 288,000 (twelve divisions of 24,000 each) is included in Israel in one case and excluded in the other. And that in the same way in regard to Judah, "the thirty" may have had command of a special body of 30,000. Possibly in one case, the descendants of the old Canaanites were reckoned (since it appears from 2 Chronicles 2:17, that David "had numbered them"), and in the other, they were excluded. There is no reason to doubt the general reliability of the numbers since we're not given all the considerations/calculations used in numbering them. In any case, it appears that a probable total population of five or six million is in order.
Just to reply to your question about Luke 3:23 & Matthew 1:16. The other verses in the OT I have no knowledge of.
As I have found this issue also and done some research and was lead to the answer. The generations from Babylon to Christ are to be fourteen as in Matthew 1:17. The way it is written is only thirteen if "Joseph", in Matthew 1:16, is Mary's "husband". First off we know something is up as the father of Joseph, Mary's husband, in Luke 3:23 is Heli. As that is his genealogy. In Matthew 1:16 it says it is Jacob.
In Matthew 1:16 what should be written is Jacob begat Joseph the "father" of Mary.
I don't know how this mix up happened as said it is only thirteen generations from Babylon to Christ as it is written. Which is wrong to the next verse. Changing "husband" to "father" makes the generations fourteen and in line with the next verse. Also we know Joseph's(Mary's husband) father is Heli not Jacob as stated.
One man had copies of original texts of "father" not "husband" for Matthew 1:16. In another language of coarse.
Hope that helps.
God Bless.
Are you claiming that the Bible is wrong simply because you don't currently understand the genealogy?
That seems like quite a logical leap and most Bible readers would disagree with such an assumption. When something isn't understood is it normal to only focus on 1 verse, and disregard what dozens of scriptures consistently say?
The Bible clearly says Joseph became the husband of Mary. That is an undisputed fact as far as I'm concerned and says this in Matthew 1:20, Matthew 1:16, etc.
It sounds like the question is who was Joseph's father? Jacob or Heli? Luke 3:23 or Matthew 1:16.
It's evident that Joseph is Heli's son-in-law. In Jewish culture it is not unusual for the son in law to be referred to simply as the son of his father in law. This custom is used in other scriptures in the Bible too where calling someone a 'son' is an endearing term, especially son-in-law.
Also, the genealogy in Matthew wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list, but a subset. Luke gave the complete genealogy and traced Christ's lineage through Mary, while Matthew traced it through Joseph.
Rather than assuming everything we don't understand is an error and spreading this around like poison, wouldn't it seem prudent to first pray and ask God for wisdom for things you don't understand, research it further and ask open questions, before trying to discredit the Bible in public based on false assumptions. Just like the fake news we see in the media today, the corrections and retractions never get the full coverage as the original falsehoods, so just like here, people likely read your remarks and drew a negative conclusion in their heart based on a false assumption and that is really sad to see this especially on a Bible website where we should be seeking God to understand the truth, not spreading lies.
What you claim as an 'error' in the Bible was just explained to you- did you read it? You claim you aren't discrediting the Bible but you double down and claim the Bible is in error. The Bible is not in error. Just because you don't understand something in the Bible doesn't mean by default you should just start attacking and discrediting it. If you want to understand something, don't you think asking a question or asking God is a better first step, before spreading your propaganda to others online about how you think the Bible is flawed?
This is a common misunderstanding and the explanation is easily found via online search on a number of different websites if you took a second to research it before posting your attacks. If you're closed off and have already decided what you want to believe, then what is your motive for posting your claims here? Your claim that a mysterious man found a mysterious text that said Joseph was Mary's father does not sound credible and why would that carry more weight than the many Bible verses clearly stating Joseph was the husband. The Bible is already translated accurately. Coming to a Bible site and making false claims about God's Word being in 'error' is beyond inappropriate.
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment below to start a new comment thread.
Note: Comment threads older than 2 months are automatically locked.
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Posting comments is currently unavailable due to high demand on the server.
Please check back in an hour or more. Thank you for your patience!
Report Comment
Which best represents the problem with the comment?