The contradiction challenge

[RabbiKnife]

Never cared a lot. 

I don't have any problem with apparent contradictions.  I don't think they are intended to hit every branch in the family line, but that the named ancestors where chosen to demonstrate continuity back as far as the author wanted them to go.

I believe one is for establishing the idea that Jesus is tied all the way back to creation, and the other for establishing that Jesus is tied all the way back to Abraham through David.

I think many folks struggling with these are folks that generally have a need for solutions in search of problems.

[Fenris]

I think many folks struggling with these are folks that generally have a need for solutions in search of problems.

Uh, is this directed at me?

[DavidGYoung]

If you chose this:
"Luke shows the line of Mary."
then you must reject:
"Matthew shows the line of Mary and her father was called Jacob."
and reject:
"Matthew shows the line of Mary and her father was called Joseph, the same name as her husband."
and reject:
"It was about Levirate marriage."
and reject:
"Joseph had a stepfather, but not in the Levirate manner."

If you choose one of these, none of which is stated in either gospel, why do you reject the other four?

[Athanasius]

I think many folks struggling with these are folks that generally have a need for solutions in search of problems.

Uh, is this directed at me?

Just the OP, I think? Maybe? I don't know who here actually cares if the genealogies are consonant or concretely historically accurate with each other beyond the OPs challenge.

[RabbiKnife]

I think many folks struggling with these are folks that generally have a need for solutions in search of problems.

Uh, is this directed at me?

No
You ain’t be a strugglin’’

[Fenris]

No
You ain’t be a strugglin’’

Do you know how much cleaning I have to do before Passover?! 

[Fenris]

If you choose one of these, none of which is stated in either gospel, why do you reject the other four?

If the NT is inerrant, then a problem with the text is based on a lack of understanding of the text and not an issue of the text itself.

[DavidGYoung]

That only works if you assume it is inerrant.
If you wish to demonstrate that it is inerrant, you need to show it can be when it contradicts.

If I start with any immovable position, e.g. the Bible consistently teaches that Islam is the one true faith, I too can maintain that anything which appears to contradict this is a misunderstanding of the text.

The end result of either approach is that nothing in the Bible means anything.

[Athanasius]

That only works if you assume it is inerrant.

As you might point out to others -- that's the point of the conditional "if". Assuming it's inerrant...

Of course, demonstrating such is the real trick, as you note, without descending into a kind of textual nihilism.

[RabbiKnife]

That only works if you assume it is inerrant.
If you wish to demonstrate that it is inerrant, you need to show it can be when it contradicts.

If I start with any immovable position, e.g. the Bible consistently teaches that Islam is the one true faith, I too can maintain that anything which appears to contradict this is a misunderstanding of the text.

The end result of either approach is that nothing in the Bible means anything.

Do you have a point you are trying to make, or are you just here to instruct us with your superior intellect and gnostic superknowledge?

I don't watch porn, and I don't entertain folks that don't get to saying what they mean while hiding behind implied superiority.  At least with porn, I guess, I would understand the point.

If you have something to say, spit it out.
Otherwise, I'll have to put you in the "all hat, no cattle" silo.

This is not edifying in any manner, so far, merely vain repetition and pointless blather.

[Fenris]

That only works if you assume it is inerrant.

That's why I said "if".

I don't consider it to be inerrant obviously. On the other hand, I understand what Christians who consider it inerrant do believe and therefore why your line of thinking is not going to provide a fruitful discussion with them.

If you wish to demonstrate that it is inerrant, you need to show it can be when it contradicts.

Which they have done to their own satisfaction even if not to yours.

The end result of either approach is that nothing in the Bible means anything.

To you, perhaps.

Even if I did not believe in God I would still think that the bible has done more to change human culture than any other work.

[DavidGYoung]

The 'own satisfaction' point really doesn't wash.

Would you agree that 'The Bible contains no contradictions' can only be a position of faith?

By contrast, 'There are events within the gospel of Mark which are historically accurate' is something which can be soundly demonstrated rationally, along with 'Various characters in the Tanakh were real people' and 'The Septuagint predates the New Testament'.

[RabbiKnife]

Bored

[Fenris]

Would you agree that 'The Bible contains no contradictions' can only be a position of faith?

No, the same could be said of any work, real or fictitious.

To wit, "Would you agree that 'Moby Dick contains no contradictions' can only be a position of faith?"

Substitute any work and it reads the same.