View Single Post
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 05-07-2009, 11:32 PM
bytebear bytebear is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: United States -
Posts: 730
Thanks: 72
Thanked 339 Times in 225 Posts
Laughs: 2
Laughs at 30 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enlil-An View Post
My question is, has anyone else here noticed this and how do we reconcile it with the Church's position that the Bible is the word of God (originally written by inspired men) and that the only errors in it are mistranlations and interpolations here and there?
How do you know that either book isn't mistranslated? But, from what I understand, the story of Christ's birth was transferred orally before it was ever written down. Clearly neither Luke nor Matthew were witnesses to the events, so they are telling the story from what they know. There are other apocrophal versions out there as well that were not canonized. Why do we accept the gospes as they exist? Because that is what we have. Joseph Smith asked God about apocraphal writings and the Lord told him they had some truth, but were not vital to the church. Similarly, I think small discrepancies in the Bible are also not all that important, and we may not ever know the complete story of Jesus' birth and upbringing until we meet him and find out first hand.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bytebear For This Useful Post:
Maya (05-09-2009), prospectmom (05-08-2009)