Discrepancies In the Nativity Story

[volgadon]

Not impossible, of course, but highly improbable. Especially for a small family. In the wintertime it was nearly impassable. That area gets ferocious flash floods. In the summertime you have no food, feed and water.
Until you've been there, it is hard to appreciate.
You still have to cross Archelaus's realm and then there are Nabataean tolls to paym and Antipas'sm and then Archelaus's again.

[JohnnyRudick]

Originally Posted by volgadon

Not impossible, of course, but highly improbable. Especially for a small family. In the wintertime it was nearly impassable. That area gets ferocious flash floods. In the summertime you have no food, feed and water.
Until you've been there, it is hard to appreciate.
You still have to cross Archelaus's realm and then there are Nabataean tolls to paym and Antipas'sm and then Archelaus's again.

Wonder how it was done then.

Do you have any ideas?

I feel Very strongly that the return back from Egypt mirrors the entrance of Joshua.


Bro. Rudick

[Enlil-An]

Originally posted by valgadon
Right, except that the small part of the coastal road given to Salome came under Archelaus's control.

You're right. My mistake. But that creates a problem for Matthew's account because going to Galilee doesn't keep the divine family from having to travel through Judea. So how is that a valid solution for keeping Jesus safe from Archelaus?

You are basing your arguments on the KJV. I'm still waiting for someone who knows Koine Greek to tell me that it doesn't say going in or through where the English has thither and that the word is warned, as you claim and not commanded or instructed.

New International Version
"So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth."

New American Standard Bible
"So Joseph got up, took the Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Then after being warned by God in a dream, he left for the regions of Galilee, and came and lived in a city called Nazareth..."

The Message
"Joseph obeyed. He got up, took the child and his mother, and reentered Israel. When he heard, though, that Archelaus had succeeded his father, Herod, as king in Judea, he was afraid to go there. But then Joseph was directed in a dream to go to the hills of Galilee. On arrival, he settled in the village of Nazareth."

Amplifed Bible
"Then he awoke and arose and [tenderly] took the Child and His mother and came into the land of Israel. But because he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in the place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being divinely warned in a dream, he withdrew to the region of Galilee. He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth..."

New Living Translation
"So Joseph got up and returned to the land of Israel with Jesus and his mother. But when he learned that the new ruler of Judea was Herod’s son Archelaus, he was afraid to go there. Then, after being warned in a dream, he left for the region of Galilee. So the family went and lived in a town called Nazareth."

For a list of more of the same, click here BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages. and type Matthew 2:22 in the search. Do you believe that all these english translations of the original greek are wrong? What would be the odds?

How are they irelevant? Let us say you read one post where I say I worked in a factory in Hatzor, my own city, and then read another where I say I live in Livnim but work in a factory in Hatzor. Which account is wrong?

Because you are speaking in the present tense. Matthew and Luke are telling a history and are speaking in the past tense. Matthew says, "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth..." but Luke says, "...they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth." Those are two totally different accounts. In Luke they are returning to the beginning point of their journey. In Matthew, they're not.

As you can't be bothered to look those up, you expect me to take the time to translate them into English?

Or quote an english version of the source you're citing, absolutely. At least provide a link to the source on-line if you can't be bothered to post the wording.

I'm sorry, but you haven't. As for the scholarly works, I've read many over many years, and quite a bit of that isn't in English. I'll try and post a short bibliography.

What good will that do if they're not even in english?

Volgadon, no one is going to trudge through all the "scholarly works" that you've read just to find the one or two paragraphes that supposedly support your arguements. The only logical and decent thing for you to do is post those parts that support your position and the details of the source so we can look it up for ourselves if we want. That's how on-line debates of this kind are done.

Here are your words. "Professional historians agree with me on this. I'm not just referring to one of Matthew's prophecies. I'm talking about all of them. All of them are bogus." (where is the exact reference BTW).

Here's one: "Matthew chooses innumerable passages and verses that in thier original context had nothing to do with a messiah, and by applying them to Jesus makes them seem so." From Jesus to Christ by Paula Fredriksen, page 38.

"For example, Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 to show that the virgin birth was predicted in scripture...

No where does Nephi claim that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy about the Savior. Nephi makes his own prophecy of the virgin birth and doesn't claim to get this idea from the Old Testament, like Matthew.

Corruption accounts for most of the errors and contradictory statements in ancient texts.

Corruption accounts for most of the contradictory statements found in texts of the same source. Matthew and Luke are two independent sources and the reason they disagree concerning the nativity of Jesus is because they're telling two different stories.

Their statement is the height of arrogance and wilful ignorance and contrasts with the Saviour's teachings. It does not mean that whoever wrote John was ignorant of the captivity. No, it is chauvinism in its fullest sense.

What evidence is there for this? It wasn't only the arrogant Jewish leaders who claimed to have never heard of an oral tradition of the Messiah coming out of Nazareth. The Jewish masses never heard of any such prophecies either:

John 7:40-43 "Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? So there was a division among the people because of him."

Or you could use the table of contents or index to find those sections which fit the time-frame.
Search engines make that even easier.
Try Antiquities, book XVIII, chp I, 6.
Wars, book II, chp VIII, section 1, chp XVII, 8.

Great! You're half way there. Now all you need is to post the part of your source that you feel supports your claims or a link to the quote so we can read it on-line the way I've been doing for you this whole time.

Where have you quoted an exact source and precisely where it is located?

Every scripture I've referred to that help make my point, I've posted the actual words of the scripture and their location in the Bible. You're the one who brought outside sources into this discussion.

[Enlil-An]

Originally posted by rameumpton
However, the Church does not worry about which stories are historically accurate, but which are inspirational and give us a decent understanding of the Christ.

The position of the Church is that the Bible was originally written by prophets under the influence of the Holy Ghost. But if historians are able to show that books like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by men who were not only under the direction of the Holy Spirit, but also embellished and invented stories of Christ to support theire particular agenda's, where does that leave the Church who believes the stories in these books to be authentic?

We believe the Bible, "insofar as it is translated correctly." Joseph Smith was bold enough to claim that the Song of Solomon was "not inspired." That doesn't mean the SoS isn't of any value or ancient, it just wasn't inspired of God.

There were many other claims Joseph Smith made about the Bilbe some of which seem to be getting debunked by modern research. Are you going to be forced to believe that Joseph Smith was inspired some of the time but not all of the time? And what if we find evidence of Joseph Smith embellishing some things himself?

We also realize that the story of the Garden of Eden goes against modern science. We do not worry about it.

Except that the unscientific things in Genesis are also backed up by the Pearl of Great Price which is supposed to be revelation from God. Is God unscientific?

Of course there are errors in the scriptures. The story of the nativity was written down decades after the death of Christ, and obviously there were at least two oral versions that were available at the time.

And what about error's in the Doctrine & Covenants or the Joseph Smith Translations of the Bible?

[JohnnyRudick]

Originally Posted by Enlil-An

. . . There are no other places in the standard works that specify where Jesus was born or how he got there.

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?

I have been bending my poor little mind trying ti figure out what your
problem is with the Scripture.

I separated out this quote of yours and can at least see what you are asking.

Matthew and Luke made it up - Jesus being born in Bethlehem.

right?


OK, here is one.

Herods coniving scribes and chief priests quoted it wrong in their pride but it is still there.


Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little
among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth
unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have
been from of old, from everlasting.


Bethlehem - City of bread.

Jesus is the Bread of Life come out of the City of Bread.

John 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto
you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father
giveth you the true bread from heaven.


This was set up the first time Abraham first set foot there.

Just a little ways away from Bethlehem where Jesus, the Bread of life was
born,


Genesis 35:15 And Jacob called the name of the place where God
spake with him, Bethel.

Genesis 35:16 And they journeyed from Bethel; and there was but
a little way to come to Ephrath: and Rachel travailed, and she
had hard labour.

Genesis 35:17 And it came to pass, when she was in hard labour,
that the midwife said unto her, Fear not; thou shalt have this
son also.

Genesis 35:18 And it came to pass, as her soul was in
departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but
his father called him Benjamin.

Genesis 35:19 And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to
Ephrath, which is Bethlehem.



Was the beginning of the Abramic Covenant.

The foundation of the House of Israel.



Genesis 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of
thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house,
unto a land that I will shew thee:

Genesis 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will
bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a
blessing:

Genesis 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse
him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the
earth be blessed.

Genesis 12:4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto
him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years
old when he departed out of Haran.


Genesis 12:5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his
brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered,
and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth
to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they
came.

Genesis 12:6 And Abram passed through the land unto the place
of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in
the land.

Genesis 12:7 And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto
thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar
unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.

Genesis 12:8 And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the
east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west,
and Hai on the east: and there he builded an altar unto the LORD,
and called upon the name of the LORD.

...

Genesis 13:2 And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and
in gold.

Genesis 13:3 And he went on his journeys from the south even to
Bethel, unto the place where his tent had been at the beginning,
between Bethel and Hai;

Genesis 13:4 Unto the place of the altar, which he had make
there at the first: and there Abram called on the name of the
LORD.


And later Jacob

Genesis 28:11 And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried
there all night, because the sun was set; and he took of the
stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down
in that place to sleep.

Genesis 28:12 And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the
earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels
of God ascending and descending on it.

Genesis 28:13 And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I
am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the
land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed;

Genesis 28:14 And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth,
and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to
the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall
all the families of the earth be blessed.

Genesis 28:15 And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee
in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into
this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that
which I have spoken to thee of.

Genesis 28:16 And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said,
Surely the LORD is in this place; and I knew it not.

Genesis 28:17 And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this
place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the
gate of heaven.

Genesis 28:18 And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took
the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a
pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.

Genesis 28:19 And he called the name of that place Bethel: but
the name of that city was called Luz at the first.

Genesis 28:20 And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be
with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me
bread to eat, and raiment to put on,

Genesis 28:21 So that I come again to my father's house in
peace; then shall the LORD be my God:

Genesis 28:22 And this stone, which I have set for a pillar,
shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will
surely give the tenth unto thee.


. . .


Genesis 31:11 And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream,
saying, Jacob: And I said, Here am I.

Genesis 31:12 And he said, Lift up now thine eyes, and see, all
the rams which leap upon the cattle are ringstraked, speckled,
and grisled: for I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee.

Genesis 31:13 I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the
pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me: now arise, get thee
out from this land, and return unto the land of thy kindred.

. . .

Genesis 35:1 And God said unto Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel,
and dwell there: and make there an altar unto God, that appeared
unto thee when thou fleddest from the face of Esau thy brother.

Genesis 35:2 Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all
that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you,
and be clean, and change your garments:

Genesis 35:3 And let us arise, and go up to Bethel; and I will
make there an altar unto God, who answered me in the day of my
distress, and was with me in the way which I went.

Genesis 35:4 And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods
which were in their hand, and all their earrings which were in
their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by
Shechem.

Genesis 35:5 And they journeyed: and the terror of God was upon
the cities that were round about them, and they did not pursue
after the sons of Jacob.

Genesis 35:6 So Jacob came to Luz, which is in the land of
Canaan, that is, Bethel, he and all the people that were with
him.

Genesis 35:7 And he built there an altar, and called the place
Elbethel: because there God appeared unto him, when he fled from
the face of his brother.


From there Abraham went into Egypt and returned.

From there Jacob went into Egypt and returned.


Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and
called my son out of Egypt.


Joshua/Jesus returned from Egypt.

After leaving to save their lives.



Bro. Rudick

[JohnnyRudick]

Originally Posted by Enlil-An

The position of the Church is that the Bible was originally written by prophets under the influence of the Holy Ghost. But if historians are able to show that books like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by men who were not only under the direction of the Holy Spirit, but also embellished and invented stories of Christ to support theire particular agenda's, where does that leave the Church who believes the stories in these books to be authentic?

There were many other claims Joseph Smith made about the Bilbe some of which seem to be getting debunked by modern research. Are you going to be forced to believe that Joseph Smith was inspired some of the time but not all of the time? And what if we find evidence of Joseph Smith embellishing some things himself?

Except that the unscientific things in Genesis are also backed up by the Pearl of Great Price which is supposed to be revelation from God. Is God unscientific?

And what about error's in the Doctrine & Covenants or the Joseph Smith Translations of the Bible?

You really have me confused.

Do I have you confused with someone of a similar name
who posts on this thread?

Now you are sounding like me



Bro. Rudick

[volgadon]

Originally Posted by Enlil-An

The position of the Church is that the Bible was originally written by prophets under the influence of the Holy Ghost. But if historians are able to show that books like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by men who were not only under the direction of the Holy Spirit, but also embellished and invented stories of Christ to support theire particular agenda's, where does that leave the Church who believes the stories in these books to be authentic?

Ah yesm you've fallen into the higher criticism trap.

A more pertinent question is where does that leave your faith.

There were many other claims Joseph Smith made about the Bilbe some of which seem to be getting debunked by modern research. Are you going to be forced to believe that Joseph Smith was inspired some of the time but not all of the time? And what if we find evidence of Joseph Smith embellishing some things himself?

The key word here is seem.

Except that the unscientific things in Genesis are also backed up by the Pearl of Great Price which is supposed to be revelation from God. Is God unscientific?

No, but is our understanding of science God's understanding?

And what about error's in the Doctrine & Covenants or the Joseph Smith Translations of the Bible?

What do you have in mind.

[volgadon]

Originally Posted by Enlil-An

You're right. My mistake. But that creates a problem for Matthew's account because going to Galilee doesn't keep the divine family from having to travel through Judea. So how is that a valid solution for keeping Jesus safe from Archelaus?

I never made the claim that they didn't have to go through Archelaus's territory. The whole point is that despite his natural fears, Joseph remembered that God commanded this and he went through the land.

For a list of more of the same, click here BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages. and type Matthew 2:22 in the search. Do you believe that all these english translations of the original greek are wrong? What would be the odds?

So what are the odds of none of the non-English translations I consulted saying warned, but rather commanded or instructed? I checked Hebrew, Aramaic, Old Slavonic and Russian (several different ones too).

Because you are speaking in the present tense. Matthew and Luke are telling a history and are speaking in the past tense. Matthew says, "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth..." but Luke says, "...they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth." Those are two totally different accounts. In Luke they are returning to the beginning point of their journey. In Matthew, they're not.

Alright then, ammend work to worked. Which one of my statements is wrong?

Or quote an english version of the source you're citing, absolutely. At least provide a link to the source on-line if you can't be bothered to post the wording.

Why do you assume that my source is online?

What good will that do if they're not even in english?

Which is part of why I didn't provide them.

Volgadon, no one is going to trudge through all the "scholarly works" that you've read just to find the one or two paragraphes that supposedly support your arguements. The only logical and decent thing for you to do is post those parts that support your position and the details of the source so we can look it up for ourselves if we want. That's how on-line debates of this kind are done.

As I said before, your loss. If you want to make sweeping pronouncements on the veracity of the Gospels and how that impacts our LDS faith WITHOUT immersing yourself in all aspects of the topic, then that is your problem.

Here's one: "Matthew chooses innumerable passages and verses that in thier original context had nothing to do with a messiah, and by applying them to Jesus makes them seem so." From Jesus to Christ by Paula Fredriksen, page 38.

I would ask you how does the author know that they had nothing to do with a messiah.

No where does Nephi claim that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy about the Savior. Nephi makes his own prophecy of the virgin birth and doesn't claim to get this idea from the Old Testament, like Matthew.

First of all, my point was that if Nephi says she was a virgin, why do you have such a hard time believing Matthew's interpretation?

The world aalmah does not exclude virginity.

Secondly, read 2 Nephi 11. And yes, I do mean the whole chapter.

Thirdly, f I can find but three latter-day prophets and apostles who support Matthew's interpretation, will that satisfy you?

Corruption accounts for most of the contradictory statements found in texts of the same source. Matthew and Luke are two independent sources and the reason they disagree concerning the nativity of Jesus is because they're telling two different stories.

Not just in the same text.

What do you make of 1 Nephi 11:13 and Alma 7:10?

What evidence is there for this? It wasn't only the arrogant Jewish leaders who claimed to have never heard of an oral tradition of the Messiah coming out of Nazareth. The Jewish masses never heard of any such prophecies either:

John 7:40-43 "Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? So there was a division among the people because of him."

What evidence? The evidence staring you in the face. Common sense. You seem to need to have everything spelled out.

Some said. If there were no other traditions, then why would there be a division, it could be settled by simple appeal to the scriptures.

Great! You're half way there. Now all you need is to post the part of your source that you feel supports your claims or a link to the quote so we can read it on-line the way I've been doing for you this whole time.

Spare me the sarcasm. That is not a war you want to start.
All you need to do is track down the source. It isn't diffcult at all to do.
I believe the whole of Josephus is online.

Every scripture I've referred to that help make my point, I've posted the actual words of the scripture and their location in the Bible. You're the one who brought outside sources into this discussion.

Your argument is based on outside sources.

[rameumptom]

Originally Posted by Enlil-An

The position of the Church is that the Bible was originally written by prophets under the influence of the Holy Ghost. But if historians are able to show that books like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by men who were not only under the direction of the Holy Spirit, but also embellished and invented stories of Christ to support theire particular agenda's, where does that leave the Church who believes the stories in these books to be authentic?

The position of the Church is (and I quote) " 8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." (Article of Faith 8). There is no other official statement regarding the Bible. Now, we tend to accept the stories, regardless of whether they are factual, because we simply do not know which one is/isn't factual, plus the stories teach great things to us.

There were many other claims Joseph Smith made about the Bilbe some of which seem to be getting debunked by modern research. Are you going to be forced to believe that Joseph Smith was inspired some of the time but not all of the time? And what if we find evidence of Joseph Smith embellishing some things himself?

Did Joseph Smith ever say he was infallible? Or did he say that a prophet is only a prophet when speaking by the Holy Ghost? Just like any of us, he spoke according to his understanding and what the Spirit taught him. He did not spend time focusing on whether the stories were historically factual. He focused on doctrine. And what IF Joseph embellished? We clearly have embellishment in the Bible from the ancient prophets (or the scribes). Do we really need to have infallible prophets to have the true Church?

Except that the unscientific things in Genesis are also backed up by the Pearl of Great Price which is supposed to be revelation from God. Is God unscientific?

We do not claim the PoGP to be perfect. We believe it to be inspired. It mostly consists of revelations/beliefs of Moses and Abraham, which would have been based upon their world view. Abraham probably believed in a flat earth, and so described things from his understanding. God gives to all mankind the amount of truth they are ready to receive (Alma 29:8), which means he doesn't necessarily give us perfect scientific accounts in all things. God's goal isn't to have us perfectly understand science, but to begin to understand our relationship with Him. Symbolism works in the latter, but science requires hard facts and not symbolism.

And what about error's in the Doctrine & Covenants or the Joseph Smith Translations of the Bible?

What about them? Are you attempting to set up a straw man? Joseph Smith got some things wrong, so he must be a false prophet, because logic suggests that prophets must be perfect in science, math, English literature, quantum theory, and baking French pastries? Is that the kind of straw man you are getting at?

Why not spend some time on the things Joseph got right? How did he know to include in the Book of Moses an account of Enoch in a place called Mahujah with a man named Mahijah, who asks him questions; when the only other place this is found is in the Dead Sea Scrolls book of Enoch? Or how about the 40+ names in the Book of Mormon that were not known in Joseph's day, but are now known to be authentic (the name Alma was unknown as a man's name in the Middle East until the Bar Kokhba letters were found <60 years ago)?

It is just too easy to spot and find a few things that do not jibe with science and insist that a prophet's role is to be the best scientist in the world. But that isn't it.

Interestingly, the cosmology in the book of Abraham does suggest an expansive universe that is organized in a hierarchical layered structure. And we now know that is true, since Edwin Hubble discovered that our universe consists of more than just the Milky Way galaxy, but is structured similarly to what Abraham suggest: planet/sun, solar system rotates around sun, solar systems rotate around a galactic center, galaxies cluster together around a super galactic cluster, which rotates around the expanding universe. Joseph's teaching that all things are made up of matter, including spirit, goes very well with science today. Joseph taught that matter cannot be made nor destroyed, which goes perfectly with science today. Matter cannot be destroyed, it can only be converted into other matter or energy. So, I suppose Joseph DID "guess right" on a few things.

[JohnnyRudick]

Originally Posted by volgadon

. . .What do you make of 1 Nephi 11:13 and Alma 7:10?. . .