When was Jesus born? - Contradiction between gospels

[alihaymeg]

Let me say up front that I am not a Greek language scholar and this verse was originally written in that language.  According to some Greek scholars however, a very strong case can be made that the verse should have been rendered:

I am quite familiar with Greek, and you are correct that the rendering could have been translated that way. It wasn't though. Never in Greek, Latin, German, English.........well, you get the picture. It is a stretch to say that it should have been. Don't get me wrong, the Bible is replete with mistranslated passages and later additions that were not in the earliest and best manuscripts.

You can disappoint the "snake handlers" by pointing out that Mark 16:9-18 are missing from the earliest and best manuscripts. Sorry guys!

You can shoot down the Catholics by showing that the earliest and best manuscripts do not contain  1 John 5:7, otherwise known as the "Comma Johanneum" ("For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.") This is an obvious later edition and has been proven to be so.

The reason for the incredibly creative ways in which the authors place the family in Bethlehem for the birth even though they lived in Nazareth is simple. They both wanted to make it appear that an OT prophecy concerning the Messiah could be connected with Jesus. They both do it in very different ways though, and both stories cannot be relegated with one another. It is impossible for them to have been where they say they were and when. Mathew and Luke both used Mark (the oldest) as a source among other sources in common. Mark is not concerned with the birth narrative because it had not been developed yet. It wasn’t part of his message or beliefs.
 

[Wootah]

At worst it just doesn't seem like a game breaking contradiction to me.

[jetson]

At worst it just doesn't seem like a game breaking contradiction to me.

It's not, it's just a bright light on the lies Christians want the whole world to believe, in order to sustain their fantasy about an after-life.

[velkyn]

At worst it just doesn't seem like a game breaking contradiction to me.

what else in the bible could be simply wrong then if this is?  This is supposedly some great book of "truths".  How do you tell which to believe in?  Your magic decoder ring that allows you to accept whatever you personally like?  That seems to be about it.

[jedweber]

At worst it just doesn't seem like a game breaking contradiction to me.

what else in the bible could be simply wrong then if this is?  This is supposedly some great book of "truths".  How do you tell which to believe in?  Your magic decoder ring that allows you to accept whatever you personally like?  That seems to be about it.

That just seems like the "all or nothing" argument of a fundie coming from an atheist perspective. But many Christians don't approach the Bible that way in the first place - they don't assume that it's "truth" should necessarily extend to historical details in a literal way. This kind of argument won't touch them, unless you could show that the basic core message of salvation through Christ is a lie.

[velkyn]

That just seems like the "all or nothing" argument of a fundie coming from an atheist perspective. But many Christians don't approach the Bible that way in the first place - they don't assume that it's "truth" should necessarily extend to historical details in a literal way. This kind of argument won't touch them, unless you could show that the basic core message of salvation through Christ is a lie.

I don't agree but I can see how you see that.  If the book is coming from God in anyway shape or form, then at least some of it supposedly is what God "meant".  If one of the parts is suspect, that throws all of it in question since even liberal Christians claim a divine origin for it.  Let's take the basic core of salvation through Christ.  If historical parts aren't correct, what evidence is there to believe that Christ existed? If he didnt' exist, then he can't be sacrificed and thus there is no salvation.  Salvation doesn't come from just belief, there are actual events that must occur, a long line of them in fact.   

[JesusHChrist]

If one of the parts is suspect, that throws all of it in question since even liberal Christians claim a divine origin for it.  Let's take the basic core of salvation through Christ.  If historical parts aren't correct, what evidence is there to believe that Christ existed?

Well, except THAT bit. That bit is certainly divinely inspired. 

[CutePuppy]

At worst it just doesn't seem like a game breaking contradiction to me.

I dunno, since Christianity is about Christ, seeing his supposed birth date contradict sounds like a significant issue to me.

But I don't think this is a contradiction at all. We're forgetting that we're talking about:
--- The one and only, magnificent Jeeee "ReBorn" Suuuus! ---

The man is known for being reborn for crying out loud. Why couldn't he have been born, then magically re-enter Mary to be (re)born again? Jesus is the son of God. He can do anything.

[Woland]

Hi Wootah

At worst it just doesn't seem like a game breaking contradiction to me.

I thought that you were one of those whose faith would be shattered if it was demonstrated to you that the Bible had errors and contradictions in it, because obviously this implies that it's unlikely an omnimax deity had anything to do with it (even if modern religionists deal with this in different ways).

Do you or do you not hold the Bible to be the inerrant word of God?

If you do, should it be demonstrated to you that this (or anything else really) is a real contradiction and not a mistranslation or whatnot (and I must say that although I am not a language scholar, there are contradictions in the Bible that are undeniable), would you admit that at least some of the rest of the Bible could be flawed and made-up?

If you are not afraid of the implications of this potential contradiction proving to be true, why do you blindly believe that Noah's Ark and all that nonsense is historically factual and recent, as Adam and Eve etc without any evidence at all whatsoever when all the mountains of evidence at hand consistently point towards those events being false and made-up (Young Earth etc.) and given most Christians aren't Young-Earthers and have no problem with the age of the Earth and making up "symbolics" excuses to "harmonize" reality with the Bible? I don't mean to side-track the conversation, so if you just want to answer this question properly I'll leave it at that.

Woland

[velkyn]

I'm curious if Wootah will respond.  We've had many Christians on here making all sorts of claims and promises and they nearly all renege on them.  Promises of deconversion if a contradiction is found, promises of "evidence" of their claims of miracles.  Considering the number of these instances, I find that Christians are often some of the most dishonest people I have ever met and it does seem that the religion causes this.