A Christian's inerrancy challenge

[Mythra]

I know. Me too. I've started three times to post here, and then went - Oh shit. This is the colliseum. delete.

 

How can you help it? I mean, when the original post contains the word "innerancy", it doesn't exactly lend itself to serious discussion.

[crazy-tiger]

To be honest, as long as I avoid turning around and insulting the shit out of someone, I reckon I'll be ok...

 

 

That, of course, is the problem... quite often the only way to get them to notice us is to insult the shit out of them.

How can you help it? I mean, when the original post contains the word "innerancy", it doesn't exactly lend itself to serious discussion.

Well, it does if it's a question about the lack of inerrancy...

[SkepticOfBible]

will be like David standing up against Goliath, or Joshua and the Walls of Jericho or Samson and the jawbone of an ass.  Let the challenge begin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well I know how you feel, only for me I am in a opposite situation. I am surrounded by fundamentalist in the place where I live.

 

I have a question, why would you not address NT vs OT contradictions?

[Pariah]

A Christian's inerrancy challenge, Can the Bible can be trusted?

 

I hope you realize that even if an innerent (that is devoid of self-contradiction) interpretation of the Bible could be found that still doesn't make the Bible true or trustworthy.

 

EDIT- also, which version of the Bible is "innerant"?

[Isak The Newt]

Must be from the Holy Spook. My fingers have a mind of their own. Sometimes they like getting me in trouble by typing first, asking questions later. LOL

 

Why do people bite off more than they can chew and then excuse it away?

like yo just did? j/k

I can see how this thread is going to turn out already:

 

Non-Christian: Over-mentioned error in the Bible.

 

Christian: Cliched attempt at harmonization.

 

Non-Christian: Accusation that the Christian is twisting the words of the Bible.

 

Christian: Claim that you have to see with the eyes of faith.

 

 

Repeat.

whos side are YOU on? O.o

And lastly, when Jesus is talking to god, becuase of the trinity, is he just talking to himself?

 

-And if he talks to himself to get the message out to the people so they can hear it... Why doesnt god just talk to the people himself? O.o

 

-If they bible is so true and correct, and you must have faith. then why did kings alter it to their liking? (Church of England::AKA: Anglican, King changed christianity so he may divorce and remarry, He had several wives, several of which didnt not produce offspring, or did but were not male.)

 

-If the bible is so true and correct, Why must there be revisions?

 

-If the bible is so true and correct, Why does it say the Earth is flat?

 

-If the bible is so true and correct, EDIT: If its true and correct, why are there contradictions?

[HadouKen24]

whos side are YOU on? O.o

 

The side of those who are tired of the same old arguments repeated ad nauseum. It gets pointless after a while. Loses its substance.

 

This very same discussion has occured many, many times before with no sign of resolution. Why would this instance of it be any different?

[Karl-777]

.....One scripture at a time I will attempt to prove that the Bible is inerrant which seems to be one of the biggest roadblocks to having faith that it could be the Word of God.......

 

THE FIRST GROUP OF MANY INDEFENSIBLE CLAIMS

 

2 Timothy 3:16 ~ KJV

"ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God....."

 

[Matthew 5:48 ~ KJV

"...even as your father which is in heaven is PERFECT"

 

Luke 1:37 ~ KJV

"For with God, NOTHING shall be impossible"

 

The above three "scriptures" state in no uncertain terms what should be expected with regards to the bible and its alleged author. Biblegod is allegedly "perfect" for whom nothing is impossible. Therefore there should also be NO ERROR in the "scriptures", historically, logically, or archaeologically.

 

UNSUBSTANTIATED OT MYTH

 

'The first millennium of Jewish history as presented in the Bible has no empirical foundation whatsoever.

 

Ur was Sumerian and had no connection with the people known as the Chaldaeans until a thousand years after any possible date to which Abraham can be attributed.

 

Israel emerged peacefully and gradually from within Canaanite society.

 

Despite the mass of contemporary records that have been unearthed in Egypt, not one historical reference to the presence of the Israelites has yet been found there. Not a single mention of Joseph, the Pharaoh's 'Grand Vizier'. Not a word about Moses, or the spectacular flight from Egypt and the destruction of the pursuing Egyptian army.

 

It is up to you to demonstrate how a nation of allegedly between 2-3 million individuals can allegely arise from 70 people in the span of several hundred years.

 

You must also demonstrate the existence of EVERY OT individual in the alleged "genealogy" of "Jesus".

 

Where is the evidence for "Moses", "Abraham", etc.?

 

How is it possible for the alleged thousands of Israelites to allegedly wander in the desert for 40 years and leave no visible trace?

 

Refute the findings of the above authors, and present here.

 

INCONGRUITY

 

Romans 3:23 ~ KJV "..all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" and IS 64:6 "..all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags" (NKJ)---contrast these two with:

Matthew 9:13 ~ KJV- " ...I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (NKJ)

....implying that some are not sinners, but are indeed righteous...who are these?..how did they get righteous?...no "filthy rags", huh?

 

Is the following the work of a "good" God?

Ezekiel 18:20 ~ KJV

.....The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son:.......VERSUS...2 Samuel 12:14 ~ KJV....Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, THE CHILD also that is born unto thee SHALL SURELY DIE."

 

The Ezekiel and 2 Samuel verses above are incongruous. Additionally, the Ezekiel passage applies to "Jesus" as well, since he would have allegedly died for the sins of his alleged mother Mary, and her alleged father (who would have been "Jesus'" grandfather on his mother's side.)

 

DIRECT SELF-CONTRADICTION

 

And I suppose you don't consider this to be a biblical self-contradiction, regarding "good" biblegod:Genesis 32:30 ~ KJV

"....for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved"

...VERSUS...Exodus 33:20 ~ KJV

And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me and live.."

 

Maybe biblegod is confused, or the "perfect" HS couldn't quote get the message through to the "divinely inspired" "spirit filled" writers and scribes. So which is it? Maybe we could just flip a coin or something....

 

The four different deaths of Saul are a spectacular quadruple self-contradiction in the "inerrant" "word" of "perfect" biblegod.

 

Saul falls on his own sword:

1 Samuel 31:4 ~ KJV Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.

 

No! wait! Saul was actually killed by an Amelekite!

2 Samuel 1:8/10 ~ KJV8 And he said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite. 9 He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me. 10 So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord.

 

Oops! - that's not it either....Saul was actually killed by the Phillistines

2 Samuel 21:12 ~ KJVAnd David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son from the men of Jabeshgilead, which had stolen them from the street of Bethshan, where the Philistines had hanged them, when the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa.

 

Actually, the first three aren't really right, biblegod did it himself:

1 Chronicles 10:13-14 ~ KJV13 So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it;

14 And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.

 

THE XTIAN TRINITY - A LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY

 

The Christian trinity is impossible by Nature and per its own book.

 

Genesis 1:27 ~ KJVSo God (Heb. Elohim-plural) created man in his own image, in the image of God (Heb. Elohim-plural) created he him; male and female created he them.

 

As per humankind in Nature, the son proceeds from the father and the mother. As per Genesis 1:27, humankind is made in the "image" of the divine. The Nicene Creed (penned by a "learned" group of "theologians" at the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 325 CE) says otherwise about the Xtian trinity however, in whose "image" humankind is made as per Genesis....

 

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

 

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

 

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

 

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

 

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen

 

As can be seen, the Nicene Creed position is that the father and the son somehow have the " lord and giver of life" HS proceed from them, which is inconsistent with "male and female" being created in the "image of God" statement in Genesis and with Nature, which means that either Nature is wrong or....Xtian dogma is wrong. In Nature, NOTHING proceeds from the father and the son, but rather, a feminine entity we all know and love called WOMAN is the giver of life, and she has the child proceeding from her by her mate.

 

I think we can agree that Nature is correct here, and not Xtian dogma..........

 

THE NOAH'S ARK IDIOCY

 

GEN 6:15 says that Noah built an ark with the exterior dimensions 300 cubits (450 feet) long x 50 cubits wide (75 feet ) x 30 cubits (45 feet) high. Assuming a cubit to be 18", we arrive at a volume of 1,518,750 cubic feet. This was allegedly constructed out of wood, and would have had many less available interior cubic feet of storage, due to the extra bracing that would be required to hold up to "seven each" (GEN 7:2 ) of "every clean animal" (IMO an early revealing that this is a construct, considering that up to that point in Genesis there was NO definition as to what a "clean" animal was), especially the more massive beasts. Other problems would include watering and specialized food for all those animals for 150 days (GEN 7:24), not to mention monumental manure problems, all to be handled by eight people!

 

GEN 7:8,9 - NKJ "Of clean beast, of beasts that are unclean, of birds and of EVERYTHING that creeps on the earth. Two by two they went into the ark to Noah, male and female as God had commanded Noah."

 

There are over 4,000 species of mammals, over 8,000 species of birds, about 6,000 species of reptiles and about 3,000 species of amphibians. Insects, arachnids, etc. total over 1,000,000 species.

 

Now for the topper...GEN 7:11-14 says Noah, his family and those animals entered the ark "on the same day" that it started to rain. That's one hell of a load rate isn't it?

 

There are two primary anomalies in the region of the volcano known as Mt. Ararat (elevation 16,945 ft.)

 

The first is at an estimated elevation of 13-15K ft. on Ararat itself, allegedly taken on a HQ USAFE mission dated 17JUN49. You can read about that at arksearch.com, an Xtian ark site: http://www.arksearch.com. There are even artistic "views" of the "ark"!

 

Another Xtian webpage, complete with claims that the "ark" at the Durupinar site was "excavated by God" in response to prayers for an earthquake also includes "Noah's long-lost city", along with some other "artifacts", and most incredibly, ".....We found two grave markers that bore the eight-cross symbols of Noah and his family...." (all set up nice and neat after all these thousands of years)....viewable at: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab...-s_Ark.html

 

Another is: http://www.noahsarksearch.com/index.htm which IMO is the most reasonable of the ark sites out there, and contains links to highly skeptical articles regarding the Durupinar site.

 

Xtian fundie "logic" will say... "there were numerous other accounts of floods, therefore Genesis is true." (including the rediculous 6,000-year-old earth speculation) [???]

 

* One of the largest wooden-hulled ships ever verified to be constructed was the 1,400+-ton screw sloop, the first U.S.S. Wyoming at 198'6" (1859-1892), which was very unstable and had all sorts of problems with leaking, even though it had iron banding. (see http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/w11/wyoming-i.htm) The Guinness Book of World Records lists the world's largest wooden dhow:

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/[/url]] Al Hashemi II, a wooden Arabic dhow commissioned by Husain Marafie and owned by the Marafie family (owners of Radisson SAS Hotel, Kuwait), is 80.4 m (263.7 ft) long, 18.7 m (61.3 ft) wide, with an estimated displacement of 2,500 tonnes. This richly decorated traditional Arabic cargo ship is held together by approximately 80 tonnes of hand-made nails and bolts and is used as a conference and reception venue. It was completed on January 1, 2000.

 

Marafie personally supervised the chopping of exotic trees in Cameroon and the Ivory Coast to ensure the estimated 3,000 CUBIC METERS (108,000 CUBIC FEET) of timber used in his ship was top quality. (and all of this for a ship only 58.6% as long as the alleged ark!) Oregon pine logs were imported from the USA for spars and masts. Around 175 craftsmen helped build the dhow....

Noah would not have had access to those materials, or have the benefit of pumps, and the ark would have had more problems with structural stress, since it would have been longer and would have had no modern fastening technology, and would have had to house those massive beasts. Additionally, if Noah and his sons spent all of their time working on this boat for decades, how did they eat? What would have prevented the wood from disintegrating or rotting while it was being built? How would they have gathered all of that food for all of those animals immediately before the trip? (and themselves?) What would have kept fruit and other perishable foods from rotting?

 

* Plants and fish would have been decimated in a global flood. Insects and plants could not survive without each other. Animals could not survive without plants. Specialized habitats would have no longer existed, and the animals would not have survived anyway, even if they made it through the trip, the plants would all have been dead. Sedimentary rocks indicate that some of them were formed in fresh water and some in salt, indicating there was no global flood.

 

CONCLUSION: It's Myth, and nothing else.

 

We'll be patient. We've put a lot out here. What we've posted so far should keep you busy for a while. Feel free to bring in whole teams of "apologists" if you want. We can put up a lot more errancy. Perhaps you could then, in light of the indefensible nature of the bible, tell us by what stretch of the imagination you can possibly derive any sort of valid conclusions upon which to base your exclusionist dogma, and.....what criteria you would use to determine which passages, if any, (in light of the errancy we've demonstrated so far) were actually the "word" of biblegod.

 

K

[Checkmate]

Karl -- I know it has been said before by others of this forum, but I must say this for myself,

 

 

You rock! Glad to be on YOUR side in any debate!

[mako]

Okay, while you are at it, explain how the same census can give two different counts as evidentially did David’s:

 

2 Sam.24:9

"And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king; and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah five hundred thousand men."

 

 

1 Chr.21:5

"And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and a hundred thousand [1,100,000] men that drew sword; and Judah was four hundred three score and ten thousand [470,000] men that drew the sword."

[Ouroboros]

...

This was allegedly constructed out of wood, and would have had many less available interior cubic feet of storage, due to the extra bracing that would be required to hold up to "seven each" (GEN 7:2 ) of "every clean animal" (IMO an early revealing that this is a construct, considering that up to that point in Genesis there was NO definition as to what a "clean" animal was), especially the more massive beasts.

...

This is something that I thought about even as a Christian, how could God ask Noah to gather clean and unclean animals, when Moses was the one given the specifications?

[Ouroboros]

Okay, I got one too. Not as elaborate as the others, but still. And maybe it's more of a theological conundrum than contradiction.

 

Jesus (if he existed) said many times that "if we pray we will get answered."

 

Mat 6:8 KJVA  Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

 

Mat 7:7-11 KJVA  Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:  (8)  For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.  (9)  Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?  (10)  Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?  (11)  If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

 

Mat 18:19 KJVA  Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

 

Mat 21:22 KJVA  And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

 

Mathew is the earlier gospel, and then in Luke, the later Gospel we see some difference:

Luk 11:9-13 KJVA  And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.  (10)  For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.  (11)  If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?  (12)  Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?  (13)  If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

 

A literalist would interpret the first quotes to give the believer the argument to pray for anything they would want to. While in Luke, already the theology has developed to dodge the bullet of "anything", as in "a new Porsche".

 

What did Jesus' really say? Was it for anything or only the Holy Spirit that you could ask God for?

 

Then in the even later Gospel, John, Jesus says:

Joh 14:13-14 KJVA  And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.  (14)  If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

 

Joh 16:23-24 KJVA  And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.  (24)  Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.

 

Now we're back to "ask for anything", but now we should ask it in the name of Jesus, while in the early Mathew, we should ask the Father, and that was it. Now we should ask the Father in the name of Jesus. You can see how the "idea" of how to ask God for something has developed, because Jesus is not teaching the same theology between the apostles.

 

And John even adds on more conditions to "prayer answer":

Joh 15:7 KJVA  If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

 

Now it's not enough to pray in the name of Jesus, but there's certain conditions to it.

 

Then James take it even a step further.

Jam 1:6 KJVA  But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

 

Jam 4:3 KJVA  Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.

 

And now to the last quote:

1Jo 5:14-15 KJVA  And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:  (15)  And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

John now have changed his mind, and say that we can only pray for things that is God's will, and he doesn't promise an answer, only that GOd will hear us. Actually the verse is very strict that God can only hear us if we pray according to his will. Which can be interpreted that God won't even hear us if we pray outside his will. Say I pray for a Porsche, and it's not his will, he won't hear me. Or I pray for a healing, but it just so happens that it is not God's will, then he won't even hear my prayer.

 

It's clear that the "theory of prayer" is developing over the years of the religion. And even Jesus own words changed.

 

The question is, if Jesus did say the things he did, shouldn't he have said all the things that we needed to know? Why would later writers explain "in more detail" things that Jesus could have explained from start? There are conflicts between the different verses, and Jesus was the one that really knew how prayer works, he should have clarified these things, and not allow a conflict between theological interpretations arise in his Church.

 

Explain this conflict.

[iprayican]

Sorry, I have a life, but that's the way it is. And please do mind your manners, I haven't been rude to you and while we certainly don't see things eye to eye, I have respect for your opinions otherwise I wouldn't be here. This is the ex-Christians website isn't it? I know some of you are infidels and probably have always been an infidel, but there must be a percentage of you that once believed or wanted to believe. This is an exercise for me. I study my Bible everyday anyway, this just gives it a bit more direction, and in turn, perhaps this effort will help both (all) of us to have a little more faith. That is my hope.

 

Ok, first problem. I can only do one at a time. Notwithstanding the quote issues, I need to go back and print your resource so that I don't miss any points. I am anticipating this will be a long response in several parts, seeing I don't want to pull an all-nighter, so please refrain from rebutals until I have stated it is completed. I'm not sure what your character/word limits are on this forum?

[Lunar Shadow]

Sorry, I have a life, but that's the way it is.  And please do mind your manners, I haven't been rude to you and while we certainly don't see things eye to eye, I have respect for your opinions otherwise I wouldn't be here.  This is the ex-Christians website isn't it?  I know some of you are infidels and probably have always been an infidel, but there must be a percentage of you that once believed or wanted to believe.  This is an exercise for me.  I study my Bible everyday anyway, this just gives it a bit more direction, and in turn, perhaps this effort will help both (all) of us to have a little more faith.  That is my hope.  

 

Ok, first problem.  I can only do one at a time.  Notwithstanding the quote issues, I need to go back and print your resource so that I don't miss any points.  I am anticipating this will be a long response in several parts, seeing I don't want to pull an all-nighter, so please refrain from rebutals until I have stated it is completed.  I'm not sure what your character/word limits are on this forum?

 

 

 

thats 2 posts since the thread was started and still no answer to anything that anyone has brought up??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why am I not surprised here some on please tell me

[Ouroboros]

Sorry, I have a life, but that's the way it is.

That's usually what I tell people to do... "get a life"... I guess some people do listen...

 

And please do mind your manners, I haven't been rude to you and while we certainly don't see things eye to eye, I have respect for your opinions otherwise I wouldn't be here.

I don't have any problems with that. And I respect your opinions too.

 

This is the ex-Christians website isn't it?  I know some of you are infidels and probably have always been an infidel, but there must be a percentage of you that once believed or wanted to believe.

Actually, the majority on this site are people that once believed, and there are a few that never believed.

 

This is an exercise for me.  I study my Bible everyday anyway, this just gives it a bit more direction, and in turn, perhaps this effort will help both (all) of us to have a little more faith.  That is my hope. 

 

Ok, first problem.  I can only do one at a time.

Personally, I don't have an issue with that. You can take your time.

 

Notwithstanding the quote issues, I need to go back and print your resource so that I don't miss any points.  I am anticipating this will be a long response in several parts, seeing I don't want to pull an all-nighter, so please refrain from rebutals until I have stated it is completed.  I'm not sure what your character/word limits are on this forum?

You might want to do it in a word process or something, and just do one rebutal for each post. And try to keep them short. There is a limit to each post, even though it's pretty big, but it's usually hard to read a super-long response.

[SkepticOfBible]

I know some of you are infidels and probably have always been an infidel,

Well Well Well. Not surprisingly a Muslim would accuse me and you as infidel. Well I guess you and me are in the same boat when you see from a Muslim point of view. I'll see you in the Muslim Hell.

[iprayican]

My premise is that both stories are correct, each having some details that overlap, with other details that are only present in the one. Let's see if I can combine the two at your point in question without any contradictions. Remember a contradiction exists when two statements cannot both be true. I need only to show the possiblity of a harmonization between passages that appear to conflict in order to negate the force of the charge that a Bible contradiction exists. Common justice requires that before one pronounce one or both of them false we should exhaust our ingenuity in searching for some probable supposition on the ground of which they may both be true. Supplementation does not equal contradiction. For there to be a bona fide contradiction one must be referring to the same person, place or thing in the same sense at the same time.

 

This is a favorite of mine. It has always annoyed me greatly that the story of Jesus' birth was not told properly according to the scriptures or ever protrayed properly in a nativity scene or film or book.

 

Luke 2:1

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. 2. And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. 3. And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. 4. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, whcih is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David: 5. To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife being great with child. 6. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. 7. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. 8. And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. 10. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. 11. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. 12. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. 13. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, 14. Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace and good will toward men. 15. And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethelhem and see this thing which is come to pass which the Lord hath made known unto us. 16. And they came with haste, and found Mary and Joseph and the babe lying in a manger. 17. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. 18. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. 19. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. 20. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them. 21. And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. 22. And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished (my note-at least 40days) they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; 23. As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord; 24. And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons. (I'm skipping over the account of meeting Simeon and Anna at the temple while they were doing this to verse:) 39. And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

 

(my note-and I end Luke's account here because the next part of of his telling skips ahead to Jesus growing and at the age of 12 in the temple. The rest of the details surrounding Jesus' birth, or the continuation of what happened next, are told in Matthew's account.)

 

Matthew 2:1

Now when Jesus was born in Bethelehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 2. Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east and are come to worship him. 3. When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all of Jerusalem with him. 4. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. 5. And they said unto him, In Bethelehem of Judaea, for thus it is written by the prophet. 6. And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, are not the least amoung the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. 7. Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.

 

(my notes-This star was more than likely a supernova star, shining brightly for a year or more, then fading out again. The magi, members of the priestly caste in Persia who were experts in astronomy and astrology and well versed also in the Old Testament. The magi were very important and powerful leaders in the great Persian empire, which had never been subjugated by Rome. They probably appeared in Jerusalem with a large entourage and thus gained quick access to Herod's court. In fact, there are some historical indications that Persia was, at this time, threatening Rome along the eastern boundries of the Roman empire. No wonder Herod was troubled and all of Jerusalem with him at the suggestion that Persia might be about to throw its support to a new Jewish King. Herod, sometimes called Herod the Great was the son of Antipater, a part-Jew of Edomite descent. He was the procurator of Judea from 47B.C. until he died in 4 B.C., soon after the flight of Joseph, Mary and the infant Jesus into Egypt. This indicates that Christ was born 4 B.C. or earlier. Evidently the star had appeared to the wise men only while they were still "in the east" Even though they probably knew that He would be born in Bethlehem ,a villiage six miles away from Jerusalem, they would naturally travel first to Jerusalem as a courtesy to the King, and they might have also assumed that this child's arrival would be an occasion for rejoicing by the time they had made their long pilgrimage from Persia, perhaps assuming that he would have been brought to the capital to be worshiped by his people, especially considering Herod was part-Jew. How wrong they were about that!)

 

8. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, God and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. 9. And when they had heard the king, they departed; and lo the star, which they had saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. 10. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

 

(Apparently, they had seen the star while in the east, and then not seen it again, until they left Herod. It does not say where the star was other than it went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. It had probably been hidden from view because the constellation of which it was a part of was in the daytime sky during those months between when they had first seen it and decided to travel to meet the new king. But once again it came into sight in the evening sky and from where they stood outside of Herod's palace, appeared to lead them to where the child then was. And where was said child?

 

In Nazareth, "into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth" about 60 miles from Bethlehem! It doesn't tell us how long it took them to follow the star, or where the star ended, we don't know when the star first appeared to them, at conception or at his birth. Apparently, they were joyful to see the star again, so they must not have been able to see it for a time. We know that it took them to the house where the child was, we know from Matthew's account that Mary and Joseph had returned to Nazareth after dedicating Jesus at the temple in Jerusalem which we know would have had to been at least 40 days from his birth.

 

Now there is a second possiblity that between the time of his birth, they had found a house in Bethlehem, been led to their house by the star and visited by the magi and then were warned and escaped to Egypt, and having Herod's death shortly thereafter, returned to Jerusalem for the dedication where Joseph is warned to return to Nazareth. This is also plausable and the dedication was delayed longer than the minimum of 40 days because of the trip and threat of Herod.)

 

 

11. And when they came into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifs; gold and frankincense and myrrh. 12. And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way. 13. And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying Arise, and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. 14. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt; 15. And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

 

(my note- and we know there must have been an approximate 2 year time period from the time the Magi had first seen the star to the time they had arrived and left and Herod realised the Magi were not going to return to him to tell him where the child was. Herod either thought the star appeared first at the birth and the child they were seeking was older, or that the star appeared prior to birth, possibly at conception and wanted to make sure he covered his bases. Herod knew from the prophesy was that the child was to be born in Bethlehem and if some time had transpired since the census, he may not have thought out at this time that people from other parts had traveled there for a short stay and then returned home. He decided to kill all the boy babies born in the potential time frame and in the area he thought the child would be found. Herod was known for his cruelty This prophecy is found in Hosea 11:1 where the context clearly indicated that it was the whole nation of Israel which had been called out of Egypt as God's young "son." The children of Israel had been born in the land promised to them by God, but nevertheless had to leave it and sojourn in the pagan land of Egypt for a while before being brought back home by their Father. Christ lived through the same experience - born in the promised land, then so-journed in Egypt for a time before he was called back home. many prophecies have dual applications and are found said by more than one prophet, this was not just something "Christians" took advantage of, these were expectant prophecies that the people of that time understood were waiting to be fulfilled.)

 

16. Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coast thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. 17. Then was fufilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying 18. In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation and weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeking for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. 19. But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, 20. Saying Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life. 21. And he arose, and took the young child and his mother and came into the land of Israel. 22. But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: 23. And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

 

(my note- Nazareth was about as far north in the land of Israel as one could go. Bethlehem would have been in the land of Judea and close to Herod's, now his son's rule, in the city of Jerusalem. Joseph listened to God and went back to Nazareth, in the land of Israel, their home before the flight to Egypt. No one prophet is mentioned here, but rather "the prophets" in general. As far as is known, the despised town of Nazareth did not even exist in

the days of the prophets, so it may be that this is a generic summary of the teachings of the prophets that the Messiah would be "despised and rejected of men" Isaiah 53:3 Some have suggested that this refers to Isaiah 11:1 where he is called a "rod" (Hebrew netzer) out of the "stem" (or apparently dead stump) of Jesse's family tree. However if you look at Zephaniah 1:14, according to some Hebrew Scholars, this text should read "The mighty man is the Nazarene" The despised village of Nazareth (John 1:46) was non existent at the time of Zephaniah, so such a prophesy would have seemed meaningless to the people of this day, thus it is possible that ancient copyists might have altered it slightly into its present form by making very slight changes. If this supposition is correct, then the enigmatic statement of Matthew 2:23 is clarified and we can see how a misunderstood and perhaps changed in copy error prophesy may have actually protected Jesus as he was growing up during the time of Herod and his son's reign when his certain whereabouts would have endangered his life. One can imagine that the Magi's appearance in Nazereth, however which way they went home to avoid Herod finding out, had been noticed by enough people to place Jesus in harms way. Herod apparently continued to pursue this till his death, howbeit short lived. Apparently, there was still fear of danger with Herod's son and Joseph is warned to return to Nazareth where they would only travel once a year for the passover to Jerusalem and we next hear about him at age 12.)

 

The visit by the shepherds recorded in Luke occured on Jesus's day of birth. The later visit by the Magi recorded in Matthew occurs either before the dedication when Jesus is no longer in the stable but has found a house in Bethlehem or after the dedication and return home to Nazareth when he would be in a house, within a period of two years as designated by Herod's window of response in deciding which babies to kill after talking with the Magi about the appearance of the star. The story does not tell us what town the Magi found him, only that they departed and followed the star after talking to Herod. The dedication could have occured after 40 days prior to the visit of the Magi and their escape to Egypt or after their return from Egypt. It is interesting to me that at the same point in verses 21 and 22 of chapter 2 of Matthew, just as in Luke, you could have the dedication in the temple we simply are not told the exact timing and both scenaros are plausable without any contradiction. Since one records a detail, the other doesn't; it is not a contradiction. Luke records different details from different time periods, which merely fills in the gaps of Matthews account.

 

Checkmate!

[scotter]

I like it. I have never read something similar. Thank you for sharing this perspective.

[SkepticOfBible]

This star was more than likely a supernova star, shining brightly for a year or more, then fading out again. The magi, members of the priestly caste in Persia who were experts in astronomy and astrology and well versed also in the Old Testament.        

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Boy all you needed was some speculation and BOOM the contradiction is gone

 

Please show me evidence that the Star was actually supernova star.

 

Perhaps this was just a wonder of God of the OT.

Or maybe it was a optical illusion created by an advance race of aliens

 

One speculation is as good as another.

 

For your assertions to be true, you will need to back it up with evidence

 

many prophecies have dual applications and are found said by more than one prophet, this was not just something "Christians" took advantage of, these were expectant prophecies that the people of that time understood were waiting to be fulfilled

 

Please show me examples of dual application of prophecies from the OT. It is only the christians that assert that some prophecies can have dual application.

 

Second of all Hosea 1:1 is a not a prophecy. It is more of a biblical fact

 

Hosea 1:1

When Israel was a child, I loved him,

and out of Egypt I called my son.

 

And please explain why the further parts of the verse doesn't applies to Jesus

 

Hosea 1:2

2 But the more I [a] called Israel,

the further they went from me.

They sacrificed to the Baals

and they burned incense to images.

 

23. And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Where will I find this prophecy in the OT?

 

Zephaniah talks nothing about Nazerene.

 

Zephaniah 1:14 (King James Version)

14The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.

[Heimdall]

Such a sweet story and such superb melding of the two gospels. However, you overlooked two major factors, either unintentionally or intentionally. One factor is the 11 year disparity between Luke and Matthew’s birth dates for Jesus. Matthew reports that Jesus was born while Herod the Great was king of Judea. Herod ruled from 37 BCE until his death in 4 BCE, if we assume that Jesus was two years old (or more) at the time of Herod’s death, he would have been born around 6 BCE. This is rather awkard in that he would have been 30 in 24 CE and John the Baptist, who was reported to have baptisted him, did not start his ministry until the “15th year of Tiberius’ reign” or 28 BCE. Hmmm, looks like Matthew must have been wrong! Well, we can check Luke, maybe he was more accurate. Luke says that Jesus was born when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. Cyrenius' name was really Publius Supicius Quirinius or more commonly Quirinius, which became Kynnios in Greek, and Cyrenius in English (KJV). Many Christians argue that Quinnius had two terms as Governor of Syria, but this is a mistaken assumption. In 12 BCE he was a consul in Rome and a favorite of Augustus. Six years later (6 BCE), Augustus awarded him the governorship of Pamphylia-Galatia in the east, where after a successful military campaign there, he earned high honors in Rome. With the death of Augustus, Quirinnius joined the circle of Tiberius’ favorites and in 6 CE was awarded the governorship of Syria. Hmmm, if Luke is right, then Jesus was born in 6 CE or later. That means that he would have been 22 years of age when John the Baptist began his ministry and only 25-26 when John was executed. Well, it looks like Luke doesn’t have it right either! Now the second major factor that you overlooked was the census. According to Josephus, there was a census taken for the purpose of assessing a special tax initiated during Cyrenius/Quirinnius administration. During this time Herod Archelaus had been deposed as ethnarch, and Judea had come under direct Roman rule, that is, it became a “procuratorial province”. It’s capital was Caesarea and it’s procurator was Caponius. This is a historical fact, coming from multiple contemporary sources. This change in status, from protectorate to “procuratorial province” is the reason behind the special taxation. While a protectorate under a native ruler, Rome was willing to let the taxes be collected in whatever way the local ruler pleased, just so long as Rome received their cut of the swag. But once Rome took control, taxation had to be done systematically, and hence the need for the census (numbering the inhabitants and their possessions). This is why only Luke’s story mentions the taxation under Augustus and makes no mention of Herod. Herod the great was dead over a decade and Herod Archelaus was deposed. Unfortunately when your two “Apostles” got around to writing their little stories in the early to middle 2nd century CE, they forgot to coordinate their stories before adding the little mythological embellishments. - Heimdall

[mwc]

I want to play too. Here's mine:

 

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 

mwc

 

P.S. Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

[Karl-777]

My premise is that both stories are correct, each having some details that overlap, with other details that are only present in the one. Let's see if I can combine the two at your point in question without any contradictions. Remember a contradiction exists when two statements cannot both be true. I need only to show the possiblity of a harmonization between passages that appear to conflict in order to negate the force of the charge that a Bible contradiction exists. Common justice requires that before one pronounce one or both of them false we should exhaust our ingenuity in searching for some probable supposition on the ground of which they may both be true. Supplementation does not equal contradiction. For there to be a bona fide contradiction one must be referring to the same person, place or thing in the same sense at the same time.....

 

As is typical with deluded fundies, you're ignoring points we have already made which illustrate indefensible biblical self-contradiction and incongruity.

 

As is also typical with deluded fundies, dogmatic narcosis prevents you from engaging in basic rational analysis.

........Apparently, they had seen the star while in the east, and then not seen it again, until they left Herod. It does not say where the star was other than it went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. It had probably been hidden from view because the constellation of which it was a part of was in the daytime sky during those months between when they had first seen it and decided to travel to meet the new king. But once again it came into sight in the evening sky and from where they stood outside of Herod's palace, appeared to lead them to where the child then was......

 

Let's examine this tripe again:

 

1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

 

The above passages say that the "wise men" came from the east, AND...that they saw the "star" in the east, which means the star would be east of where they were. Of course, in order to be led by the "star" as it "went before them" to get to "Jesus", they would have had to travel west, not east.

 

Then to top all of that off, we are asked to believe that the star actually stopped and "stood" over where "Jesus" was. I have no doubt that the expert astronomers you mentioned (from all over the world) would surely have made note of such an extraordinary aberration of Nature as a "star" standing still in the heavens.

 

These absurdities only further underscore the hopelessness of the literalization of these myths.

 

......Checkmate!

 

(... ...)

 

K

[MQTA]

no shit! LOL haven't seen anyone bring that up before.

 

So they were East of Jerusalem, they saw a star East of THEM, and then they went WEST to Jerusalem, since they were From the East. And then they stopped following the star... but they were walking AWAY from it. hahahaha

 

Got it.

[Ouroboros]

My premise is that both stories are correct, each having some details that overlap, with other details that are only present in the one.  Let's see if I can combine the two at your point in question without any contradictions.  Remember a contradiction exists when two statements cannot both be true.  I need only to show the possiblity of a harmonization between passages that appear to conflict in order to negate the force of the charge that a Bible contradiction exists.  Common justice requires that before one pronounce one or both of them false we should exhaust our ingenuity in searching for some probable supposition on the ground of which they may both be true. 

I don't think Common Justice really do that. It would mean that every accused would go free. There wouldn't be any convictions. Why? Because there's alway a possibility that someone framed him/her.

 

And using a method of exhausing your ingenuity to glue literal contradictions would help you make any book becoming a book of prophesies.

 

Supplementation does not equal contradiction.

It depends on the situation. If the author of a book says "A", then a reader of the book can't say "A+B". If Jesus said something, he said it in completion and supposedly from the horses, sorry, Gods mouth. While disciples later on added on new interpretations and their own thoughts. If Jesus was the son of God, why do you trust humans more than him? Why do you take humans words and explanations above Jesus' own words?

 

For there to be a bona fide contradiction one must be referring to the same person, place or thing in the same sense at the same time.

Which I gave you an example of. Two "eyewitnesses" giving two different accounts of what Jesus said.

[quicksand]

I need only to show the possiblity of a harmonization between passages that appear to conflict in order to negate the force of the charge that a Bible contradiction exists.

Stop right there greenhorn. You may show that a possiblity that harmonization exists between two contradictions, however that does not make such a conclusion(s) readily apparent or manifestily the correct and the immediate answer.

 

Sorry, but I can harmonize anything by denying the middle ground between one thing and another.

 

Meaning,you special plead, and I need not read on; waste my time, Since God has got your back, you and your god fail as much as you think he succeeds and this is why you should just amdit that your God is a mass murder, rapist, and xenophobe... ie inerracy counts for all attributes about God - the Good and the Bad. I will wait UNTIL you refute my post about direct revelation - which only makes all this apolegetics of inneracy POINTLESS

 

Which you can't. You can't not refute it because it will undermine every single argument for which you use to harmonize about the Bible and that pet GOD of yours in your head.

 

You're finished and I thank the rest of Ex-C indulging you, BUT I will not.

[Mythra]

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. 

 

(my note- Nazareth was about as far north in the land of Israel as one could go.  Bethlehem would have been in the land of Judea and close to Herod's, now his son's rule, in the city of Jerusalem.  Joseph  listened to God and went back to Nazareth, in the land of Israel, their home before the flight to Egypt.  No one prophet is mentioned here, but rather "the prophets" in general.  As far as is known, the despised town of Nazareth did not even exist in

the days of the prophets, so it may be that this is a generic summary of the teachings of the prophets that the Messiah would be "despised and rejected of men" Isaiah 53:3  Some have suggested that this refers to Isaiah 11:1 where he is called a "rod" (Hebrew netzer) out of the "stem" (or apparently dead stump) of Jesse's family tree.  However if you look at Zephaniah 1:14, according to some Hebrew Scholars, this text should read "The mighty man is the Nazarene" The despised village of Nazareth (John 1:46) was non existent at the time of Zephaniah, so such a prophesy would have seemed meaningless to the people of this day, thus it is possible that ancient copyists might have altered it slightly into its present form by making very slight changes.  If this supposition is correct, then the enigmatic statement of Matthew 2:23 is clarified and we can see how a misunderstood and perhaps changed in copy error prophesy may have actually protected Jesus as he was growing up during the time of Herod and his son's reign when his certain whereabouts would have endangered his life.  Checkmate!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh, this is gonna be tough. I'm not colliseum material.

 

Dear iprayican: I find your explanation of the "Nazarene" prophecy to be somewhat inadequate. You say that "he shall be called a Nazarene" (which we all know doesn't exist in the writings of the prophets) is probably referring to the statements of the prophets that the Messiah will be despised and rejected by men -

This explanation of yours demonstates a detachment from reality with regards to our level of naivete. i.e. We didn't just fall off the turnip truck.

 

And, the town of Nazareth didn't just not exist during the time of Zephaniah. It didn't exist during the time of Jesus, either.

 

checkmate? You gotta be kidding (or delusional?). Oh-oh. Is it okay to say that in the coliseum? I mean, I didn't call him delusional. It was a question.