Luke and Matthews geneologies

quote:

---

I am saying that LUKE is authentic, no body can say otherwise. Oh but he says things that are different then other gospels, "LAUGH" so what, so does my mother and father they both say different things about me, oh but also so do my friends but they all understand my nature.

---

So you are
(1) Saying that the gospels are personal witness reports about Jesus Christ and that
(2) by extension they can not be taken literally, as they might provide ambiguous information.and BTW not trying to tease you, just clearing up your standpoint.
best regards

quote:

---

I am saying the bible is nto reliable without a prophet to translate it and that is exactly what happened in the 1800's with Joseph smith.

​

So for the record I believe the bible as long as it is translated correctly it is Authentic.(The entire thing)

---

So again, for the record, are you saying it is authentic (as in real, witnessed reports, not altered etc.) or are you saying it is literally true?If it takes a prophet to understand it, then by extension you can not take the bible literally, but only the prophet's words. Then again, who can say who is a prophet and who is just a raving lunatic (o.k. exaggerating but still).I asked

quote:

---

(2) by extension they can not be taken literally, as they might provide ambiguous information.

---

to which you answered

quote:

---

2 = No

---

But this is a contradiction to what you said afterwards: If it takes a prophet to understand it, then the bible provides ambiguous information.best regards