Discrepancies In the Nativity Story

[Enlil-An]

Look, guys. Everyone can believe what they want. I'm not here to convert you to something you don't want to accept. A person can explain away anything uncomfortable if they completely close their mind to the reality of what they're looking at. All they have to do is isolate all the details, refuse to put them together and then find the tiniest bit of doubt for each detail one at a time. That way the big picture disappears and all coherence gets lost in the minute points. People from all persuasions can do this. I'm satisfied that I've made my case and I think anyone who looks at the evidence with intellectual honestly will see these facts for what they are.

It recently came to my attention that the birth narratives of Jesus in the gospels of Matthew and Luke are irreconcilably contradictary.

You should get out more often. It's hardly breaking news.

Oh, please! You know very well that most members have no idea of these things. I've been raised in and around the Church all my life. I've studied the scriptures along with stutent manuals, taken semenary, and debated religion since I was at least 17 and I never came across these things until I was researching on line one night. I can only conclude that what you mean when you tell me I need to get out more is that I need to get out from under the influence of the Church more. Is that what you're saying? If there are any LDS scholars who address these things, I would be grateful to know about them and their work.

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?

1. Yes

2. Easy - they got it wrong.

What's the problem?

The problem is that when I realized Matthew and Luke were telling two totally different birth narratives, I began studying the Bible from the "historical critical" position to see what other problems it had and discovered that historians have made enormous progress in the last forty years uncovering and interpreting new data which exposes much of the Bible as a book that was influenced more by the times and conditions in which the authors lived than by an all knowing Heavenly Father. The more I sudied, the more I realized that the problems were so great that the only way I could reconcile what I was reading with what I've been taught by the Church is to come to the conclusion that Joseph Smith got it wrong...about many things. And that there is a possibility that even sections and teachings from the Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price (not to mention the Joseph Smith Translations) are wrong as well. I think any member who was even slightly familiar with LDS teachings would understand why this would be a problem.

For example (this "problem" I discovered previous to the Nativity problem while studying ancient myths from Mesopotamia), Genesis chapter 1 says, "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth..." Creationists have stretched these scriptures to no end to try and explain this scientifically. The truth is that what Genesis is describing is the creation of the universe as the people of the Ancient Near East understood it. They believed that the earth was flat, that the sky was a round dome, and that the whole of everything was surrounded by water ("the abyss").

Now I have no problem with the ancient Hebrews believing these same things and even incorporating these concepts into their sacred scriptures. I don't think it was that important to God for the Israelites to the know the exact science of creation. The problem is that these verses are reinforced in the Pearl of Great Price in both Abraham and Moses and these are supposed to be revelations given to these men (and then regiven to Joseph Smith) straight from God! Why would God lie to these prophets and tell them the earth was flat and encased in a dome called "Heaven" when he knew these scriptures would come forth in an age that knew better?

[TeancumsSword]

You obviously have been studying this for a while and have invested much of your energy in the subject. You seem to have made up your mind, so go with it... Go and do what you like, and be content in your decision. But I don't see the purpose in you coming to argue this with believing folks, if not to try to change peoples views.

[Enlil-An]

I've been studying the Ancient Near East as a hobby for over a year and have been studying the historical critical angle of the New Testament for a few months now. After being convinced of so many discrepancies and evidence of human influence on the NT (and the Old), I decided to search out an LDS website like this one to see if I could find some other members (and this is what I stated from the very beginning in my first post) who had ran into the same things I did and who were struggling like I am to reconcile or combine in someway these facts with what the Church teaches and believes and my own testimony of the Church's work. Guess I'm on my own. I was prepared to explain my position to those who had questions and challenges but never intended on coming in here just to argue with people.

[Justice]

Originally Posted by Snow

Well that's untrue. Evidence (facts of history) and words (contradictions between Gospels) have proven that there are errors in the accounts.

LOL... and you've proved that I can be proven wrong.

However, proving something true and proving something false are 2 entirely different animals.

I was referring to proving Gospel truths.

[Just_A_Guy]

Enlil-An, you do raise some good points overall about just how literally the Church does--or should--take the Biblical narrative. I don't think you chose the best example with which to open the discussion, but nevertheless I'll be interested to see it play out. For my part, I pretty much stand by what I said yesterday:

I'm not sure that the Church's official position is that the only factual errors in the Bible came through mistranslations. I'm very comfortable with the idea that the original authors of the Bible wrote the truth as they understood it, but that some portions of the Bible were written based on either misinterpretation of a revelation or else unreliable hearsay.

More LDS biblical scholarship would be nice, but the danger is that you start getting scholarly views (which are subject to change over time) conflated with "official Church doctrine"--for example, as a church we've still not completely purged from our system some of the "academic" arguments explaining, say, polygamy (a cure for a demographic surplus of unattached women? Hogwash!) or the priesthood ban (originated with Joseph Smith? Not true!).

Nor is it the function of the Church leadership to satisfy our curiosity about Mesoamerican or Mesopotamian history and culture. They're having enough trouble fulfilling their appointed functions--teaching people what they need to know to prepare themselves for eternal life--without also taking on the responsibilities of an academic history department. If a testimony borne of the Spirit can't convince a person to take better care of his family, or to be more honest in the workplace, or quit looking at pornography--then President Monson's leading us to an archaeological site containing a treatise on quantum physics engraved on clay tablets in Abraham's own hand, or an engraved monument in Egypt mentioning Joseph of Canaan, Steward of Pharaoh Akhenaten, isn't going to do it either.

Unfortunately, we're going to have to content ourselves with BYU's work (which, AFAIK, has been less than steller--primarily for political reasons, I suspect) or else use the Spirit to try to sift through the vast corpus of non-LDS and even secular biblical research.

[Snow]

Originally Posted by Enlil-An

Oh, please! You know very well that most members have no idea of these things. I've been raised in and around the Church all my life. I've studied the scriptures along with stutent manuals, taken semenary, and debated religion since I was at least 17 and I never came across these things until I was researching on line one night. I can only conclude that what you mean when you tell me I need to get out more is that I need to get out from under the influence of the Church more. Is that what you're saying? If there are any LDS scholars who address these things, I would be grateful to know about them and their work.

You must run with a slow crowd. The folks I hang with have been aware of the this stuff for years and years. I teach it in Priesthood meeting if it is relevant to the topic.

This kind of criticism has been around for hundreds of years. One of the early Church scholars/intellectuals/apostles that interacted fairly well with Biblical criticism was BH Roberts and that was 100 years ago. If you want to blame the Church for your lack of education - then I'd say you are trying to blame someone else for your own failings.

LDS scholars are certainly aware of this stuff as are historical scholars in general but until recently, there hasn't been any popular book directed toward the lay public on the matter. Off the top of my head I can recommend 1. From Jesus to Christianity: How Four Generations of Visionaries & Storytellers Created the New Testament and Christian Faith: L. Michael White; 2. Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) Bart D. Ehrman 3. The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church's Conservative Icon, Marcus J. Borg, John Dominic Crossan.

The problem is that when I realized Matthew and Luke were telling two totally different birth narratives, I began studying the Bible from the "historical critical" position to see what other problems it had and discovered that historians have made enormous progress in the last forty years uncovering and interpreting new data which exposes much of the Bible as a book that was influenced more by the times and conditions in which the authors lived than by an all knowing Heavenly Father. The more I sudied, the more I realized that the problems were so great that the only way I could reconcile what I was reading with what I've been taught by the Church is to come to the conclusion that Joseph Smith got it wrong...about many things. And that there is a possibility that even sections and teachings from the Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price (not to mention the Joseph Smith Translations) are wrong as well. I think any member who was even slightly familiar with LDS teachings would understand why this would be a problem.

The Church is full of people that understand the problem with the Bible (and other scriptures way better than you will ever understand them - unless you make it your avocation). I am probably much more familiar with much of it than you are. YOU may have a problem with it. I don't lose any sleep nor do I get a aflutter and tweaky when someone like you tries to sound an alarm.

Try this on for size: The Bible is a history of God's dealings with man - from MAN'S point of view. God let man fumble along with it - as he permits in most all cases - but kept HIS hand in it enough so that gospel truths necessary for our salvation remained intact.

For example (this "problem" I discovered previous to the Nativity problem while studying ancient myths from Mesopotamia), Genesis chapter 1 says, "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth..." Creationists have stretched these scriptures to no end to try and explain this scientifically. The truth is that what Genesis is describing is the creation of the universe as the people of the Ancient Near East understood it. They believed that the earth was flat, that the sky was a round dome, and that the whole of everything was surrounded by water ("the abyss").

Now I have no problem with the ancient Hebrews believing these same things and even incorporating these concepts into their sacred scriptures. I don't think it was that important to God for the Israelites to the know the exact science of creation. The problem is that these verses are reinforced in the Pearl of Great Price in both Abraham and Moses and these are supposed to be revelations given to these men (and then regiven to Joseph Smith) straight from God! Why would God lie to these prophets and tell them the earth was flat and encased in a dome called "Heaven" when he knew these scriptures would come forth in an age that knew better?

See above.

Everyone (lots of people) goes through this wringer when they get out of high school and get confronted by a college professor that wants to mess with their mind. A mature, rational mind can make pretty quick work of the reconciliation. Some people go off the deep end because their faith is not properly grounded.

Re: the JS PoGP problem - I don't know what verses specifically you are referring to but think about it a moment... JS was a well-versed student of the Bible. He was also an intellectual (self-educated). Do you think that he thought that the earth was flat and the sky was a round dome?

[Snow]

Originally Posted by Justice

LOL... and you've proved that I can be proven wrong.

However, proving something true and proving something false are 2 entirely different animals.

I was referring to proving Gospel truths.

I accept gospel truths taught in the Bible and acknowledge the logical and factual difficulties therein.

[Maya]

Most people in Church have enough with their work and family, their testimony and reading the scriptures.. just to hold their heads above the water. I think it is wrong to accuse the Church for hiding facts from members. The truth is, and has always been there for anyone to read and find it. We are not alike some "christians" who, what ever accusition is said against the Bible, go in closed modus and start repeating : Bible is true , Bible is true it is the word of God. I think you are meixing some religions here. We accept that there are mistkes in the Bible and all of them hase not been revieled to us yet. We have found some possible errors.
But we go forward with extrem carefullness. It has been proved so many times that what we have discovered by sience today is not the final truth tomorrow. We rather than closing treads, we leave them open for further knowledge and say.... this is what we know today, but tomnorrow no one knows.
Some people have the problem closing an opinion too hastily, which may or may not be the truth. It is ok if they are able to say sorry I was wrong, but often they hold on to their beliefs strongly, forcing them to others. Better is to keep an open mind of things you cant know if they are true.
The truth, heart, of the Gospel dont change, just things around it.

[Snow]

Originally Posted by Maya

Most people in Church have enough with their work and family, their testimony and reading the scriptures.. just to hold their heads above the water. I think it is wrong to accuse the Church for hiding facts from members. The truth is, and has always been there for anyone to read and find it.

Agreed - some people want everything handed to them on a silver platter without working for it, and if they don't get it, blame someone else for their lack effort.

[BenRaines]

Snow, thank you for post #46 in this thread.

Ben Raines