Discrepancies In the Nativity Story

[Enlil-An]

Originally posted by mnn727
If you have 2 different people telling the same story, does it have to match exactly or be declared false?

If you have two people telling the same story, they need to corrobarate eachother at least in some way. The problem isn't that the accounts of Matthew and Luke don't match exactly, the problem is that they don't match at all. They both purport to tell the story of how Jesus was born at Bethlehem and they both tell completely different tales about how it happened.

Let me ask you a question. What is it about the accounts of Matthew and Luke that make you believe they're telling the same story?

[volgadon]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRudick

Not so modern.

The academic school of thought which we call "higher criticism" started in Alexandra Egypt around 150ad with people like Origen, Pamphilus, Eusebius and others.

There is no trace of the LXX before this outside of tradition.

The LXX was concocted to change, add to and take away from what the early Apostles had written.

This "school of thought" continued through Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405 A.D.) down to the Reams bible out of France (1582 A.D.)

Westcott and Hort in the mid 1800s up to this day.



Bro. Rudick

I fear you are quite wrong on this. The LXX (the Septuagint) predates the apostles.

Origen was the foremost Christian scholar and apologetic of his day. he most certainly was not a higher critic. He was a Christian apologetic. Perhaps you were thinking of the Hexapla, which consisted of the OT in Hebrew, a greek transliteration and the four Greek translations of the text, including the Septuagint. This work was invaluable for textual criticsm, as it gave one the original as well as four rather different translations.
Origen, though, was born in 185 AD.
Most of his views are quite close to the restored gospel.

Pamphilus was devoted to collecting the earliest copies of the Bible. He was not a higher critic either.

Eusebius was an historian and apologist, not a higher critic.

These all concerned themselves with textual (or lower), not higher criticsm.

The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the OT for the hellenised Jews of Alexandria, so they would be able to read the scriptures in their own tongue, which was Greek. The Pentateuch (5 books of Moses) was translated in the 3rd century BC and the rest was translated at various times, until the 1st c BC. Fragments have been found which predate the birth of Christ.

Aristobulus and Philo, Jewish philosophers and historians who lived before the birth of Christ both mention the Septuagint, and there is another document, the letter of Aristeas, which is just as ancient.

This was the OT used by the Jewish diaspora and the early Christians.

[JohnnyRudick]

Originally Posted by volgadon

I fear you are quite wrong on this. The LXX (the Septuagint) predates the apostles.

Origen was the foremost Christian scholar and apologetic of his day. he most certainly was not a higher critic. He was a Christian apologetic. Perhaps you were thinking of the Hexapla, which consisted of the OT in Hebrew, a greek transliteration and the four Greek translations of the text, including the Septuagint. This work was invaluable for textual criticsm, as it gave one the original as well as four rather different translations.
Origen, though, was born in 185 AD.
Most of his views are quite close to the restored gospel.

Pamphilus was devoted to collecting the earliest copies of the Bible. He was not a higher critic either.

Eusebius was an historian and apologist, not a higher critic.

These all concerned themselves with textual (or lower), not higher criticsm.

The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the OT for the hellenised Jews of Alexandria, so they would be able to read the scriptures in their own tongue, which was Greek. The Pentateuch (5 books of Moses) was translated in the 3rd century BC and the rest was translated at various times, until the 1st c BC. Fragments have been found which predate the birth of Christ.

Aristobulus and Philo, Jewish philosophers and historians who lived before the birth of Christ both mention the Septuagint, and there is another document, the letter of Aristeas, which is just as ancient.

This was the OT used by the Jewish diaspora and the early Christians.

Yes, this is what the Roman Church teaches us, but how can you call those Gnostic philosophers
champions of Christianity?

The Septuagint was mostly Origen's creation and edited by Eusebius and when they got through
with the writings of the apostles they could hardly teach the same doctrine.

We have been adding more and more of their poison to the text of the Bible from the mid 1800s up
to this day in one form or another by using, "older and better manuscripts say". . . .
I am sorry that you have been taught otherwise.

Wish I could find my notes on the subject but that I have been convinced of the truth of which I speak.

The Book of Mormon reveals to us;

1 Nephi 13:26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve
apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest
the formation of a great and abominable church, which is most
abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken
away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and
most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they
taken away.

1 Nephi 13:27 And all this have they done that they might pervert
the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and
harden the hearts of the children of men.


Isaiah was given a revelation that he wrote down for us;

Isaiah 29:10 For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit
of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your
rulers, the seers hath he covered.

God told us through Amos the prophet;

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I
will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a
thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

Amos 8:12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the
north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the
word of the LORD, and shall not find it.


This was done by many who believed in keeping men in the dark concerning the words of God.

The church through the centuries had to hide in the hills and mountains of Turkey, Greece and
Italy and even France from those who would burn their churches, Scriptures and even the Christians themselves.

They preserved the writings of the apostles as well as they could with Gods help for the day when
God would raise up men who would bring to light enough of Gods word to prepare the world for the
restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

But til that day the world was kept in darkness.

Yes Erasmus had access to much of the LXX and Jerome's Latin Vulgate but chose not to use any
of the texts coming from that side of the stream and chose mainly those coming up out of the east.

We see in history two streams of bibles.

Thoise coming out of the Catholic Church from Alexandra through Jerome through Reams France
on to Wescott and Hort who mixed the text in with the TR with the unholy mix becoming bolder
and bolder up to this day.


The rascals were at it earlier then you think.



Bro. Rudick

[volgadon]

Bro Rudick, you are way off on that one. The LXX was translated before the birth of Christ. This is an indisputable historical fact, easily verified by Jewish (not Catholic) sources, as well as surviving manuscripts.

Far from changing the words of the apostles (an impossibility, as it is an OT translated before they were born) the text is very messianic in nature.

This was very displeasing to the pharisees and sages, who commisioned another translation, around 130 AD, which was very literal and tended to follow rabbinical interpretation.

Mind you, what any of this has to do with higher criticsm is beyond me.

Erasmus most certainly did use the vulgate for his New Testament, a new Latin translation. He included the Greek text alongside, but when he couldn't find several verses in Revelation, he used a vulgate manuscript to render them back into Greek!

This 'poison' is what the NT uses for its quotes from the OT.

[volgadon]

BTW, the ones hiding in France were the most gnostic of the bunch, if it is the Cathars you are refering to.

[volgadon]

All Origen did was compile the texts side by side. The very fact of there being 4 very different translations alongside the original both in Hebrew and in a Greek transliteration, made it very difficult for private interpretations. That we don't have a complete original is a great loss.

[rameumptom]

I have to agree with Volgadon on this one. The Septuagint is pre-Christ. You can read more on it here: Septuagint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As it is, we know that the Bible has gone through many translations, deletions, additions and changes over the centuries. I don't think it was as much an evil conspiracy as Johnny makes it out to be, but just people doing their best to represent their views of doctrine as best they could.

The reality is, we have a Restoration because many things were changed or lost. Origen was actually rather accurate in many of his teachings, but even his were influenced by the Hellenism of the early Christian Church. Of course, St Augustine would later call much of Origen's works as heretical, especially regarding his views on the Godhead (which was closer to LDS beliefs than to the Trinity). Eusebius was a historian of the Church, who held to Origen's views on the Godhead, and was exiled at Nicaea for his "heresy."

[JohnnyRudick]

I guess my senility is showing


Can't even put together the New Testament history from the Old Testament


Thanks again.


Still hold to the Conspiracy theory of keeping Scriptures from the folks.

Purposefully changing and leaving out key Scripture in letters by satanic forces
but that is me and my weird beliefs in the "Devil theory of History"



Bro. Rudick