What? Dude, I didn't ready what Happy wrote, he's fighting his own battle I read the link you posted and on the fisrt example it failed, so i didn't read the rest. Would you like me to help Happy out wit his arguments? lol

Edit:

OK, I just read the second point in the article. I think Happydolphin made a good point in that both accounts in Matthew and Luke CONFIRM the same event. That's what's important. Luke, however, simply states that Jesus heard about the sick servant BEFORE the centurion came up to him. And that's why the Gospels, i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John MUST be read together to get a better or fuller understaning of the events that took place.

You must understand as well that the gospels were written with different types of readers in mind, and thus in somee instances would have told the same story  a bit differently. For example, Matthew was written for Jewish sensibilities, while Luke was written for Greeks (or maybe Romans I an't remember). This means that whether the story being told is true or not is not the point, but how it was told to the reader. Meaning that calling Jesus Messiah means a lot more to the Jewish reader then it would to the Roman. Ultimately, there is no contradiction, just a different emphasis on certain details.

Moreover, I shouldn't have to explain this to you, but please note that we don't know how much time elapsed during the time Jesus arrived at Capernaum and when he met the centurion. For example, don't assume that Jesus just jumped off a boat and then the centurion magically appeared in front of him that second. It is an event that elapsed of a period of time.

Why on Earth did you quote him if you didn't even read his post? (Which I'm sure you actually read but wanted to avoid talking about by creating this minor distraction.)

Feel free to "help" Happy out with his argument; he was basically making the same argument as me by pointing out that the message is what really matters. Only possible (I say "possible" because Happy never actually made his stance clear here) difference is that I think these contradictions are indicative of the stories being fictional. If you wanna claim otherwise by suggesting that Jesus' followers suffer from short term memory loss or whatever, go ahead.

You're saying FROM Abraham to Isaac is two generations? FROM 1 to 2 is 2 numbers?

For arguments sake I'll roll with your answer. From David to the exile of Babylon would be 15 generations if we include David and Jeconiah.

Just a reminder. Counting generations as suggested by the text gives 12, 13, 13. Your way gives 14, 15, 15. We're trying to reconcile with 14, 14, 14.

Matthew 1:17 counts David in two generations. This is because Matthew 1 not only lists the geneology of Jesus but also list HISTORICAL periods in the jewish ancestry. As I said before, the book of Matthew was written for Jeewish sensibilities, so while the geneology of Jesus is important, it is also more imporrtant for JEWS to undertsand the geneology's historical context. You don't just read the words on the page of the Bible, you also need to understand their significance, i.e. the geneology of Jesus might also be a historical account of fact when Israel was taking into captivity. Plus I'm surre there is some prophesy being fullflied in there if you can take the time to study WHEN they went into captivity.

Anyways, here is how the geneology goes.

1. The history of Israel from Abraham to David: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah and brothers, Perez (and Zerah), Hezron, Ram, Amminadob, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, and David. That’s 14 generations from Abraham to David. We don’t count Zerah as he is the same generation as Perez.
2. From David to deportation to Babylon: David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah. That’s 14 generations. Notice that the passage says: “from David to the deportation.” Therefore, David is considered the first generation in the deportation.
3. From Babylon to the time of Jesus: Jeconiah, Shealtial, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Elikim, Azor, Zadok, Achim, Eljud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, Jesus. 14 generations.

Wait are people on here really discussing how true a book was written 2000 years ago by people who thought that 5 and 2 of every species on earth would fit on a boat, wouldn't lead to the most inbred mongeloid creatures within 2-3 generations? Not to mention that all the fish life on earth would survive in a massive fresh water flood? really?

Well besides how great a read the Bible is, this interview was an absolute travesty for her to suggest that because of his background and religion he shouldn't ever write a book regarding anyone elses views but yet Fox News would be the first to show anything going on in the Islamic countries and judge the shit out of what they're doing. Heck even on a more personal lvl would it be her opinion that no one on here can ever add a contribution to a discussion about a system/company they don't worship hah? this place would get pretty quiet.

You do....Understand what Islam says about Jesus, right?

Muslims' belief in Jesus is vastly different than a Christian's belief in Jesus. One believes he is the messiah, and son of God. The other believes he is simply another prophet of God. Why would you believe that someone that has that faith will publish books that would attack his own religions' beliefs about that person?

Like I said, it'd make as much sense as a Christian proclaiming that Mohammed is Allah's prophet, and that Jesus isn't the Son of God. They're conflicting religious viewpoints.

A simple Wikipedia search on Jesus in Islam would agree with this statement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam

Just read a bit. You'll understand why both religions' beliefs of Jesus are heavily conflicting with one another.

I am not being prejudiced against Muslims by stating this simple fact. No Muslim believes the way I do about Jesus. If they did, they really couldn't be considered Muslim, because it would negate their own prophet's declaration about the nature of Allah. Likewise, taking a Muslims' account of the nature and lack of divinity of Christ would fully negate the core components of what a Christian believes. They are mutually exclusive. Yes, both believe that Jesus existed, but their belief on his nature are heavily divergent.

If you can't understand this, then I really have nothing else to say to you. These statements aren't an attack against Muslims. I respect their right to believe differently about Al-Isa than I do. But I'm not going to agree with their viewpoint, because I do believe its wrong as a Christian - because if I did take their viewpoint on the nature of Al-Isa, then I would no longer be a Christian.

You go brotha!

In #2, why aren't you counting Jeconiah? He was definitely there at exile listed as Josiah's son.

Also from Abraham to Isaac is one generation. Not two. You can't include Abraham because he's point zero. Keyword is from. From 6 o'clock to 7 o'clock is only 1 hour.

Note to Fox News, next time read pass the cover of the book.

Also about the discussion if the Bible is factual or not. Its actually both yes and no.

Yes because actual historical figures, prophets have written the gospel and No, because the Bible and its content has probably been changed, edited, cut or censored to benefit the few and use it as their main weapon.

The Vatican.

You don't realize this, but there are copies/manuscripts available of the Bible that have been discovered that pre-date any Vatican involvment in the Bible. P4, P45, P46, P47, P66, and P75 all pre-date Vaticanus, Sinaticus, and Alexandrinus among others. These manuscripts and fragments were all dated to 200AD and 250AD - which is 50+ years before Vaticanus.