Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Luke

[Sahara]

The genealogy of Jesus in the book of Luke starts with Adam. The earth can only be so old. If you believe the New Testament is inerrant, you have no choice but to be a Young Earther. The genealogy goes back to Adam and it only lists 77 generations.

If you believe the earth is 4.543 billion years old, as scientists do, then you must concede that the genealogy of Jesus in the book of Luke is inaccurate.

True?

[jimwalton]

False. Genealogies in the ancient world never pretended to include every generation. They constructed their genealogies to suit a political or religious agenda. The genealogies of Genesis, Numbers, Nehemiah, Matthew and Luke are no different. One cannot gauge the passage of time by counting the generations in ancient genealogies. They had a different mindset.

[John Opinion]

But the Bible isn't reliable, and has no more "authority" than any other book. It just makes various claims, most of which can't be verified, and many of which are too vague to be of any practical use. There's some great writing in there, but it doesn't bare much relation to reality.

[jimwalton]

> But the Bible isn't reliable

Well, this is where the discussion lies. I contend that it is, but to some extent that depends on how you define "reliability". It has historical accuracy as confirmed by documentary and archaeological data. It has geographic and cultural accuracy. It interprets history with a theological eye, an interpretation not subject to historical or scientific verification.

> has no more "authority" than any other book

This is your personal bias and opinion. Mine is different, as you might guess.

> It just makes various claims, most of which can't be verified

Again, it depends what you mean. Many (though not all) of its historical claims can be verified; its interpretations of history are unverifiable. I may think jonnyopinion is a nice guy. While his hair color or height may be verifiable, my interpretation of him as of good character is an opinion and nothing more, not particularly subject to verification. The claims that the Bible makes of divine action in history are theological interpretations of events and not subject to scientific verification any more than a scientist's declaration of a particular purpose in a phenomenon is not subject to scientific analysis.

> many of which are too vague to be of any practical use.

You would have to specify what you are talking about here. I can't comment until I know more.

> but it doesn't bare much relation to reality.

Again, you have a right to your opinion, but there are billions of Christians in the world who find much relation to reality in the teachings of the Bible. Let's talk more.

[J Lord]

> it means that God, rather than humans, is the source of Scripture

If this is the case, then how could the scripture have errors in it?

[jimwalton]

You and I have had many conversations before, and we have covered this territory. But that as it may, we can go over it again. This particular comment depends what you mean by "errors". There are copying mistakes in the text made during the course of human transmission, but I sense you intend something deeper than that. Let me know what you want to discuss.

[J Lord]

> Genealogies in the ancient world never pretended to include every generation.

Do you know of any other genealogies from the ancient world that are not found in the bible?

[jimwalton]

Oh, of course. The most famous one is probably the genealogy of Hammurabi, written on behalf of Ammisaduqa. There are Mesopotamian genealogies that are mostly royal and are rarely more than 3-4 names. Egyptian genealogies, mostly from the Persian and Hellenistic periods, extend 15-20 generations and often connect to priestly lines, similar to what Ezra and Nehemiah do, as well as Chronicles. We can also learn about the ancients' perspectives on genealogies by studying the genealogies of their gods.

In the time of the NT, the Samaritans, Greeks, and Romans all kept genealogies, as did the Jews.

[John Opinion]

You've called my claim that the Bible has no more authority than any other book "my personal bias and opinion". I don't know what you mean by that. I am claiming that a book has no special authority simply because it is regarded as having such a thing by a religious institution. Every book that makes truth claims should be compared to reality to see if those claims are correct. That's not bias, it's an absence of bias.

What would you like to talk about?

[jimwalton]

Any book only has authority that is vested in it by the reader. No book has inherent authority, whether a science, history, law, or philosophy text, or any other text, for that matter.

Science texts: Anything but a modern science text is now known to have a boatload of mistakes in it due to more recent discoveries; even modern texts will be shown to have false information in them in future years. Should we claim they have special authority?

History texts: Historiography is a matter of interpreting either part or all of the available data. All historiography is interpretive and incomplete, for no history text can capture all of what happened from every potential angle, and at the same time be complete devoid of bias or an interpretive slant. Should we claim any history text has authority?

Philosophy: Philosophical perpectives change with the eras and with further culturally-contexted thought. Should we invest any philosophy text with authority?

Law: Laws change, as was seen in 1974 with Roe v Wade and last year's Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage. Law texts, therefore, are only contextually authoritative, and even then, one can always find loopholes and contradictory rulings.

Religious texts: Religious texts, you are right, are vested with authority by those who are convinced of their reliability. Obviously, as a Christian, neither the Vedas or the Qur'an or the book of Mormon have any authority for me.

Your claim that the Bible "has no more authority than any other book," then, is a personal opinion of yours based on your bias, since you are not a believer and don't recognize the Bible as having authority. It's not an insult, but a recognition that any book only has authority if perceived as such by the reader.

> Every book that makes truth claims should be compared to reality to see if those claims are correct.

I totally agree. I honestly wonder, though, if you have compared the Bible's claims against reality (history, archaeology, geography, culture, psychology, philosophy, sociology) before you judged it as "isn't reliable". The Bible has a tremendous amount of accuracy, truthfulness, and reliability to it. I'm not yet convinced you are assessing it with "an absence of bias."