The Bible - The Authentic Word of God (Part 1)

              There is no way that a true Christian can begin to develop and understand their worldview if they fail to view the Bible as the authentic Word of God.  Once we show that the Bible is true, we can then use its words and apply them to our lives.  I will present a several part series on the Bible's authenticy.  Let’s begin.

                A good place to start would be by examining the Bible for any contradictions.   Obviously, if we find a contradiction that can't be explained, then the Bible disclaims itself and we should push it aside.  Why should we waste our time on a document that can't stand up to scrutiny?  There are many instances in the Bible that seem to be contradictory or impossible (all of these have been explained by the way), but let's look at one of them.   Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-37 provide the genealogy of Jesus.  Matthew's version gives the genealogy in the form, "Abraham the father of Isaac," while Luke documents his version in the form, "Isaac, the son of Abraham."  In order to make our comparison of the two records easier to read, I will change Luke's form to match Matthew's.  I want to look at the period from Zerubbabel to Jesus. (Zerubbabel led the first group of Jewish exiles from Babylon to Jerusalem)

Matthew 1:13-16                                 Luke 3:23-27

"Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,   "Zerubbabel the father of Rhesa,

Abiud the father of Eliakim,           Rhesa the father of Joanan,

Eliakim the father of Azor,             Joanan the father of Joda,

Azor the father of Zadok,               Joda the father of Josech,

Zodok the father of Akim,              Josech the father of Semein,

Akim the father of Eliud,                Semein the father of Mattathias,

Eliud the father of Eleazar,             Mattathias the father of Maath,

Eleazar the father of Matthan,        Maath the father of Naggai,

Matthan the father of Jacob,           Naggai the father of Esli,

and Jacob the father of Joseph,       Esli the father of Nahum,

the husband of Mary, of whom       Nahum the father of Amos,

was born Jesus,                                Amos the father of Mattathias,
who is called Christ."                       Mattathias the father of Joseph,

                                                         Joseph the father of Jannai,

                                                         Jannai the father of Melki,

                                                         Melki the father of Levi,

                                                         Levi the father of Matthat,

                                                         Matthat the father of Heli,

                                                         Heli the father of Joseph,

                                                         and Joseph the father of Jesus."

                There appear to be two obvious problems with the two records of Jesus' ancestors: #1 Luke's version is much longer than the other and #2 many of the people's names are different.  How do we explain this problem? 

                #1 It seems that Matthew provides an abbreviated version of Jesus' genealogy.  My study Bible points out that, "Genealogies often compressed history, meaning that not every generation of ancestors was specifically listed.  Thus, the phrase, 'the father of,' can also be translated, 'the ancestor of.'"  If this is true, then Luke simply gave a more detailed account than Matthew did.

                #2 However, that does not resolve the name issue seen throughout the passage.  To explain this, we need to set our time machine back to the days of Jesus.  During that time, women were not held in as high of a regard as they are today.  Consequently, when genealogies were given through a person's mother, it would list the father's name although there was no blood relation.  This appears to be the case here.  Luke is giving the genealogy through Mary while Matthew gives it through Joseph.

                  Potential contradictions can be resolved similarly to the one above by taking the passage into its cultural context.  Others cannot be resolved in such a way but must be examined in light of the original writings.  The Bible was not written in English but in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.  Consequently, the translations are not always accurate.  This is the cause for several "contradictions."  However, when we refer back to the original languages, the problems disappear.  

                Realize now that even more weight is added to the belief that the Bible is true.  You don't have to rely only on faith to believe in the Bible.  If Scripture causes no problems for itself, there must be some truth in it.  In the next parts to this series, we will see that there is much more evidence that backs up the Word of God and you will come to realize that it was not just a made up book.  It is our guiding light!

Don't forget to read your Bible,

Matthew