Discrepancies In the Nativity Story

[Enlil-An]

Originally posted by volgadon
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.

Nice try, but that's not what the scripture is saying. In every instance, when Joseph learns that Archelaus is the ruler of Judea, the scripture says he was afraid to "go there" (KJV "go thither"), not that he was afraid to "travel through" and when he received a warning from the angel, the scripture clearly indicates that he changed course in going to Galilee. Many english translations say, "he withdrew" into Galilee. The KJV says he "turned aside" (essentially the same as withdrew). The Messege translation of the Bible even says, "But then Joseph was directed in a dream to go to the hills of Galilee." Why would an angel need to direct Joseph to go to a place that he was going to already?

All the indications from Matthew 2:21-23 is that Joseph was originally going back to the land of Judea (presumably home to Bethlehem) and that he only went to Galilee instead because Archelaus was the new ruler of Judea and the angel's warning. You can (and will no doubt) disagree with this assessment but this is how it sounds to me and this is how most historians interpret it as well.

So what are the odds of none of the non-English translations I consulted saying warned, but rather commanded or instructed?

What difference does it make whether Joseph was warned or commanded? The point is that he wasn't originally going to Galilee. And if you are right that Joseph was "commanded" to go there, it is only more evidence that he wasn't originally heading there in the first place.

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

Your scenarios don't contradict either other at all. But then they don't have a back story do they. I'm sure you could invent a back story and word it in such a way that it could support your position, but Matthew and Luke cannot be harmonized with one another the way they are told and worded. They are different, contradictory stories. In Matthew's gospel, the holy family travels from Bethelehem to Egypt to Nazareth. In Lukes' they travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem back to Nazareth and they journey under completely different circumstances than those laid out in Matthew. The birth stories of the two gospels can't be reconciled.

Why do you assume that my source is online?

Why must I repeat myself two and three times because you seem to skim over everything I write and only pick out portions of it to nit-pick? I gave you two options, valgadon. Either post a link to the source online or type the quote into your post. Until you do, I'm not going on anymore of your scavanger hunts just to find out what I know already - that you are wrong.

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

If you can't provide them, then there's no point telling us you have them to begin with because you can't use them to back you up.

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.

You're the one making sweeping announcements about the Gospels. I'm just reading them as they stand and because they don't support what you want to believe you resort to all kinds of ludicrous tactics for refuting them from challenging the accuracy of their translations to stretching the text to mean something it doesn't and even refusing to take the passages at face value trying instead to invent some alternate meaning for them. "Oh, well it was customary for the Greeks to tell histories that contradict eachother. It's part of there culture." "Well, you see, when Jews claim they don't know something, they're only pretending to be ignorant toward an idea they find repulsive." What nonsense! Can you provide any real evidence for these absurd claims or not?

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

Because she read them in the context in which they were written just like I did. Something Matthew DID NOT do.

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?

You are obviously having a hard time understanding what I've typed. You need to slow down and read my posts more carefully so I don't have to keep repeating myself. Let me say it again:

I don't have a problem with Matthew saying that Jesus was born of a virgin. I have a problem with Matthew saying that Isaiah prophecied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Nephi never claims that Isaiah prophecies of the virgin birth. Nephi makes his own prophecy of the virgin birth. My problem with Matthew isn't that he says Mary was a virgin. My problem is his interpretation that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of Jesus' birth. Got it now?

The world aalmah does not exclude virginity.

"The original Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14 reads as follows (translated):

"Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman [ha-almah] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu-el".[1]
Jewish scholars reason that [ha-almah] ("young woman") does not refer to a virgin and that had the Tanakh intended to refer to such, the specific Hebrew word for virgin [bethulah] would have been used. This view is often disputed by Christians (see below), and has been a point of contention between Jews and Christians since the formation of the modern Church. Jerome, in 383 CE, wrote in "Adversus Helvidium" that Helvidius misunderstood just this same point of confusion between the Greek and the Hebrew."
Isaiah 7:14 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

There is absolutely NOTHING in that chapter that supports your claim that Nephi believed Isaiah prophecied of the virgin birth of Jesus. Another wild goose chase.

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

No, it wouldn't. Sorry.

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

Once again, neither of those verses support Matthew's claim that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy about Jesus or his virgin mother.

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.

And you accused me of needing everything explained? There was a division because many Jews thought he was the Messiah based on all the miracles he was performing (not from some non-existant tradition that the Messiah would come from Nazareth) but the other Jews refused to believe he was the Messiah because he wasn't from Bethlehem as Micah prophecied.

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.

No. No more wild goose chases. I read 2 Nephi 11 and the other scriptures you cited because you couldn't be bothered to cut and paste them into your post. Now it's your turn to show a gesture of good faith. If you want me to read that part of Josephus that you maintain supports your point of view, post it in the thread for all of us to read. I'm not doing anymore work to search out your sources when all of them so far have been nothing but dead ends.

If you can't do this, we might need to just agree to disagree and spare ourselves any further haggling.

[volgadon]

Originally Posted by Enlil-An

Nice try, but that's not what the scripture is saying. In every instance, when Joseph learns that Archelaus is the ruler of Judea, the scripture says he was afraid to "go there" (KJV "go thither"), not that he was afraid to "travel through" and when he received a warning from the angel, the scripture clearly indicates that he changed course in going to Galilee. Many english translations say, "he withdrew" into Galilee. The KJV says he "turned aside" (essentially the same as withdrew). The Messege translation of the Bible even says, "But then Joseph was directed in a dream to go to the hills of Galilee." Why would an angel need to direct Joseph to go to a place that he was going to already?

And the Hebrew, Aramaic, Slavonic and Russian I consulted say went to. And where the KJV has thither, those languages I mentioned have in.

The Message is a very mediocre work.

All the indications from Matthew 2:21-23 is that Joseph was originally going back to the land of Judea (presumably home to Bethlehem) and that he only went to Galilee instead because Archelaus was the new ruler of Judea and the angel's warning. You can (and will no doubt) disagree with this assessment but this is how it sounds to me and this is how most historians interpret it as well.

The indications of those English translations. Read some publications (any historical ones) where academics are reviewed by their peers and you will see why I don't much hold with the most historians bit.

What difference does it make whether Joseph was warned or commanded? The point is that he wasn't originally going to Galilee. And if you are right that Joseph was "commanded" to go there, it is only more evidence that he wasn't originally heading there in the first place.

The difference, as I've already laid out, is that there seems to have been only the one dream, the first one.

Your scenarios don't contradict either other at all. But then they don't have a back story do they. I'm sure you could invent a back story and word it in such a way that it could support your position, but Matthew and Luke cannot be harmonized with one another the way they are told and worded. They are different, contradictory stories. In Matthew's gospel, the holy family travels from Bethelehem to Egypt to Nazareth. In Lukes' they travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem back to Nazareth and they journey under completely different circumstances than those laid out in Matthew. The birth stories of the two gospels can't be reconciled.

There are times when I think you almost get it.

Why must I repeat myself two and three times because you seem to skim over everything I write and only pick out portions of it to nit-pick? I gave you two options, valgadon. Either post a link to the source online or type the quote into your post. Until you do, I'm not going on anymore of your scavanger hunts just to find out what I know already - that you are wrong.

So is it your final opinion that I am wrong about there being a tradition of the Messiah in the Galilee, specifically at Arbel?

You're the one making sweeping announcements about the Gospels. I'm just reading them as they stand and because they don't support what you want to believe you resort to all kinds of ludicrous tactics for refuting them from challenging the accuracy of their translations to stretching the text to mean something it doesn't and even refusing to take the passages at face value trying instead to invent some alternate meaning for them. "Oh, well it was customary for the Greeks to tell histories that contradict eachother. It's part of there culture." "Well, you see, when Jews claim they don't know something, they're only pretending to be ignorant toward an idea they find repulsive." What nonsense! Can you provide any real evidence for these absurd claims or not?

Wy I tell you to study historiography is because what sources we use for the ancient world were not written as modern day histories are. It is an extremely ignorant position to assume that they were. If your only interest is in being able to crow that all of us poor simpletons are decieved, then you probably won't want to waste your time doing meaningful research. You want me to do everything for you, whereas I want you to go out and learn for yourself.

Because she read them in the context in which they were written just like I did. Something Matthew DID NOT do.

It still her opinion. And it is your opinion that Matthew didn't, because you disagree with him.

You are obviously having a hard time understanding what I've typed. You need to slow down and read my posts more carefully so I don't have to keep repeating myself. Let me say it again:

I don't have a problem with Matthew saying that Jesus was born of a virgin. I have a problem with Matthew saying that Isaiah prophecied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Nephi never claims that Isaiah prophecies of the virgin birth. Nephi makes his own prophecy of the virgin birth. My problem with Matthew isn't that he says Mary was a virgin. My problem is his interpretation that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of Jesus' birth. Got it now?

"The original Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14 reads as follows (translated):

"Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman [ha-almah] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu-el".[1]
Jewish scholars reason that [ha-almah] ("young woman") does not refer to a virgin and that had the Tanakh intended to refer to such, the specific Hebrew word for virgin [bethulah] would have been used. This view is often disputed by Christians (see below), and has been a point of contention between Jews and Christians since the formation of the modern Church. Jerome, in 383 CE, wrote in "Adversus Helvidium" that Helvidius misunderstood just this same point of confusion between the Greek and the Hebrew."
Isaiah 7:14 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word betulah could have been used. Would is a bit presumptious.

Almah does not preclude virginity, indeed, one could ask just how Nephi knew Mary was a virgin.

What is the significance of the name Immanuel?

You need to understand that the reason Israeli and Jewish scholars are so adamant about it not being a virgin is that this verse was one used quite frequently by the Catholics when Bible-bashing the Jews and forcing them to convert.

There is absolutely NOTHING in that chapter that supports your claim that Nephi believed Isaiah prophecied of the virgin birth of Jesus. Another wild goose chase.

Or, quite conceivably, you missed the point. What does that chapter tell us about Isaiah and his methods of prophecy? What chapters follow this one?

[QUOTENo, it wouldn't. Sorry.[/QUOTE]

Why wouldn't it?

Once again, neither of those verses support Matthew's claim that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy about Jesus or his virgin mother.

Never said they did, but guess what they do support. Jesus being concieved in Nazareth, yet being born in Bethlehem.

And you accused me of needing everything explained? There was a division because many Jews thought he was the Messiah based on all the miracles he was performing (not from some non-existant tradition that the Messiah would come from Nazareth) but the other Jews refused to believe he was the Messiah because he wasn't from Bethlehem as Micah prophecied.

So a simple appeal to scripture showing that the Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, would have settled that.

No. No more wild goose chases. I read 2 Nephi 11 and the other scriptures you cited because you couldn't be bothered to cut and paste them into your post. Now it's your turn to show a gesture of good faith. If you want me to read that part of Josephus that you maintain supports your point of view, post it in the thread for all of us to read. I'm not doing anymore work to search out your sources when all of them so far have been nothing but dead ends.

You are very tiresome with those silly little accusations. I did not c&p the chapter because it is a bit large for a single post.
Why don't you show a goodwill gesture, that you really are open to discussion and learning, and read those very precise verses from Josephus.

If you can't do this, we might need to just agree to disagree and spare ourselves any further haggling.

Debating, not haggling. I suggest a dictionary to learn the difference. I could c&p the definition, because I know how fond you are of wild goose chases.

[JohnnyRudick]

I hesitate to say it but we are dealing with Korihor who os looking for a wayt to discredit the Scriptures and he is starting with the weakist link.

The Gospels.

We already have a caveat "as far as they are translated correctly" and so that is the easiest way to get in to start tearing down the record.

We have to have a better understanding the history of the record and that thee are now and were men who not only by accident, but by design
added to and taken away from the records but also many of those records did survive in reasonable condition and Erasmus and others were
able to secure them for our benefit therefore brought together the tool to set the stage for the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

But He is saying that the Author is dishonest and it got into the Scripture.

That is a sore that can spread over time to the rest of what God has caused to be written.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness:


We are going no where here but he is intent to show that you cannot trust the Scripture.

God we have seen with even the Pearl of Great Price and in places in the D&C that He will make the Scripture for us today in the way
He wants us to have them in spite of the way they may have been in the so-called "originals".

We have the Scriptures today in the way He wants us to have them today.

If we study and have faith in Him, we can make sense of them.

Bro. Rudick

[Enlil-An]

Originally posted by volgadon
And the Hebrew, Aramaic, Slavonic and Russian I consulted say went to. And where the KJV has thither, those languages I mentioned have in.

The text says in the overwelming majority of translations that Joseph was afraid to go to Judea (not travel through) and that only when he was warned in a dream did he travel to Galilee. It's obvious to mea that he was originally going back to Judea and only went to Galilee to flee from Archelaus. I have no other arguements I can bring to the table than those I already have. If you don't want to interpret the scripture that way, that's fine.

The indications of those English translations. Read some publications (any historical ones) where academics are reviewed by their peers and you will see why I don't much hold with the most historians bit.

I'm not doing any such thing, volgadon. The historians who accept Matthew and Luke's nativity story as independent contradictory accounts have already provided enough evidence to show me that the two stories cannot be harmonized.

The difference, as I've already laid out, is that there seems to have been only the one dream, the first one.

And what difference does this make on anything we've been talking about? Spell it out for me.

So is it your final opinion that I am wrong about there being a tradition of the Messiah in the Galilee, specifically at Arbel?

You are wrong if you are asserting that there are traditions of the Messiah coming from Galilee that go back to the time before Christ. I have no doubt that later traditions of Jesus invovling Mt Arbel have developed.

Wy I tell you to study historiography is because what sources we use for the ancient world were not written as modern day histories are. It is an extremely ignorant position to assume that they were. If your only interest is in being able to crow that all of us poor simpletons are decieved, then you probably won't want to waste your time doing meaningful research. You want me to do everything for you, whereas I want you to go out and learn for yourself.

Hogwash! You haven't given me any thing to research that has any meaningful support for your point of view and now you're trying to weasle out of posting quotes from your sources, we must assume, because you don't want to us to see how weak they are as a defense for your arguements.

I read biblical historiography on my own and I can assure you, nothing I have read (and doubtful will ever read) has lead me to the wild conclusions you're making about the Jews in John's gospel and unless you provide quotes or a link to a precise statements from credible sources (quote Josephus if you want), there's no reason to think that you know what you're talking about and no reason for me to exert myself any further.

It still her opinion. And it is your opinion that Matthew didn't, because you disagree with him.

I guess all of our beliefs are based on our opinion, aren't they? Her opinion is shared by many other historians (who aren't paid evangelists) who have also written scholarly works on this subject. It's the only real logical opinion that there is...in my opinion.

The word betulah could have been used. Would is a bit presumptious.

Almah does not preclude virginity, indeed, one could ask just how Nephi knew Mary was a virgin.

Nephi knew Mary was a virgin because he had his own vision concerning her. Nothing in anything Nephi writes suggests that he got this idea from Isaiah.

"Almah" may not preclude virginity (just like the english phrase young woman deosn't) but the problem is that it doesn't insinuate virginity and there's no reason to assume that it would. It would be more presuptiuous to assume that Isaiah used such a vague word for virgin when there was a more precise word available. Don't you think that if Isaiah wanted his readers to know she was a virgin, he would have said "virgin" and not "young woman"? Afterall, a many babies do you think were born of a virgin in Isaiah's world?

What is the significance of the name Immanuel?

It's a Hebrew name like mine, Matthew which means "gift of God". Many Hebrew names incorporate divine status in their meanings. Immanual (which is not the Hebrew name for Jesus) is a very common Israelite name and when reading Isaiah 7:14 in context with the rest of the chapter and the correct Hebrew wording, it's obvious that it isn't referring to Jesus.

The name Samson means sun child and his birth was also predicted in scripture. Does that mean we should believe that his mortal father was not his real father and that he was begotton by the sun?

You need to understand that the reason Israeli and Jewish scholars are so adamant about it not being a virgin is that this verse was one used quite frequently by the Catholics when Bible-bashing the Jews and forcing them to convert.

There is no evidence that Jews ever interpreted Isaiah 7:14 that way even before Christ was born. And the fact that the original Hebrew doesn't use the word virgin, is solid evidence that Matthew is the one using that verse for polemical reasons.

Or, quite conceivably, you missed the point. What does that chapter tell us about Isaiah and his methods of prophecy? What chapters follow this one?

Why don't you just explain the point, Sherlock, and post whatever quotes from that chapter (and the following ones if necessary) to demonstrate it exactly what your point (which you still haven't made clear) is and how Isaiah and Nephi support it?

Why wouldn't it?

Because I've lost my faith in the abilities of general authorities to always correctly interpret the Bible.

Never said they did, but guess what they do support. Jesus being concieved in Nazareth, yet being born in Bethlehem.

How on earth do 1 Nephi 11:13 and Alma 7:10 support that? Niether Nazareth nor Bethlehem are even mentioned in those scriptures.

So a simple appeal to scripture showing that the Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, would have settled that.

There were many Jews who appealed to scripture but others still believed in him because of the miracles. It says this quite clearly in John chapter 7.

I did not c&p the chapter because it is a bit large for a single post.
Why don't you show a goodwill gesture, that you really are open to discussion and learning, and read those very precise verses from Josephus.

If the verses you want me to find are very precise, why don't you give me the precise number for those verses. I'm not scouring four whole chapters of Josephus just to find...what ever it is you want me to find.

Debating, not haggling. I suggest a dictionary to learn the difference.

I know the difference and you definately like to haggle. But nevermind...

[JohnnyRudick]

So is this just over the verse in Isaiah?

Or are you saying that Matthew, Luke and John are dishonest?


"Cause Joseph might well have been going to go through Bethlehem
but decided to go home a different way.

And I do not see the problem with the wording as this type of wording is
found in many places I have read.

Weather they returned to Nazareth or journeyed to Nazareth,
they still ended up in Nazareth.


This reminds me of a conversation I had with some about there being two Bethlehems.

One in Judea and one in Galilee just outside of Nazareth.

Are you heading in that direction?


Just wonderin'



Bro. Rudick

[Enlil-An]

Originally posted by rameumpton
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.

That's not what the 8th Article of Faith says. It says we believe the Bible to be the word of God. Do you really believe it's been that badly translated that whole entire stories are false? I don't think that's the Church's position and I've never heard a Sunday school teacher or general authority put the Bible into the prespective that you just did.

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?

He said there was no error in the things he had taught. Apparently that was wrong.

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?

It isn't just the stories in the Bible that have problems. The doctrines do as well. And if a prophet can be so fallible as to lie and give wrong information, what is the benefit of following a prophet over any other man?

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?

No, I'm saying that if Joseph Smith was wrong in his interpretation of scripture and prophecy, there might be something more complex about being a prophet that what the Church has traditionally taught. Don't you believe that the Church should teach the truth about this complexity?

We do not claim the PoGP to be perfect.

No, we claim that it's true. And obviously there are parts of it that are not true.

Why not spend some time on the things Joseph got right?

I do when I'm talking to non-members on other threads.

[Enlil-An]

Originally posted by JohnnyRudick
Or are you saying that Matthew, Luke and John are dishonest?

Luke possibly. Matthew definately. John doesn't say anything about the virgin birth or Jesus being born at Bethlehem. I don't think he believes it.

Weather they returned to Nazareth or journeyed to Nazareth,
they still ended up in Nazareth.

There's no disputing that Jesus was from Nazareth. The point is how he got there. Matthew and Luke are painting the target around the arrow with their birth narratives of Jesus because they're trying to demonstrate how Jesus was from Nazareth, but really born at Bethlehem where the prophecy of Micah says the Messiah is supposed to come from and they both come up with different stories of how Jesus got from A to B.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with some about there being two Bethlehems.

One in Judea and one in Galilee just outside of Nazareth.

Are you heading in that direction?

No, the direction I'm leaning in is that Jesus was probably really born in Nazareth and that all oral traditions of him being born at Bethlehem were invented to conform to prophecy.

[JohnnyRudick]

Originally Posted by Enlil-An

No, the direction I'm leaning in is that Jesus was probably really born in Nazareth and that all oral traditions of him being born at Bethlehem were invented to conform to prophecy.

So Micah, The City of David, the Bread from Heaven and all was just made up stuff?




Bro. Rudick

[Enlil-An]

So Micah, The City of David, the Bread from Heaven and all was just made up stuff?

Very possibly. It's also possible that Jesus was born at Bethlehem. He just didn't get there the way Matthew and Luke said he did.

[rameumptom]

En-Lil,

Your premise that the Gospels were written by the "original prophets" is wrong. You are building up a case based upon a wrong premise. We do not have the "originals" of any scripture, except for the D&C.

And AoF DOES state, "insofar as it (the Bible) is translated correctly." There are no other qualifiers, as the Lord did not give them to us. We learn not only through prophets, but other sources as well (such as science). And science is showing us things that Joseph did not know.

I've mentioned that the Lord gives to all people the amount of truth they are ready for (Alma 29:8), and that would include the LDS. Joseph never claimed to be perfect in his revelations. In fact, he had no problem with going back and improving upon them or correcting them later. Several D&C sections today were actually compiled together from more than one revelation, or were later corrected with new information.

So, let's take your straw man and give him a rest. You can discuss issues, but let's not make liars out of "prophets" who may not have even written the books. And if a few symbolic fables got into the scriptures, so what? Are you one that insists on a God-breathed book? If so, then the LDS Church is not for you, because the Lord has given us living prophets and the Holy Spirit to guide us into understanding what is truth. But we still learn line upon line, precept upon precept. The perfection comes in the next life.