The Contradictory Nativities of Matthew/Luke

[Devekut]

I often think we do an injustice to the intelligence and integrity of our anicent predecessors. When we look at the early Christian Church we see people who are consumed by the study of scripture, who could quote from memory a passage to suit any situation they found themselves in and for any pastoral need. They lived and breathed Christ.

I, for one, do not believe that this current age is the first to understand that it is possible to read the gospels as disharmonious and fragmented. If you Wavy, in your one lifetime have come to realize that John and the Synoptics have different Christologies, and that John's is more loftier, do you really believe that thousands of years of devotion to those texts have failed to discover the same? Even the Evangelist himself surely understood that his Gospel was different in many respects from the Synoptics. The question, in the end, is whether or not the Gospel of John, in its inner logic, stands consistent with the previous testimonies while bringing their latent implications to the fore.

From the beginning the Christian Church chose to read the New Testament as a harmonious whole, simply because it began on the pre-supposition of faith and trusted in the Holy Spirit, entering, therefore, into a mindset far closer to the Evangelists themselves than the historical critics of today.

Like Catholic Crusader, I suspect part of your difficulty has been your decision to read the New Testament as simply your own independent endeavour. As you yourself admitted, left alone with the shackles of fundamentalist literalism undone, the Scriptures can become puddy. This should disturb us, so taking the text before the history of its hermeneutic would be wise.

Additionally, I think some historical humility should be in order when we open these texts. Ancient is not a synonymn for "ignorant". I guess the question is, what are the Evangelists really saying? If we actually start on the basis of their intended message, if we begin with the underlying unity and perhaps "essence" of the Gospel then from there we can proceed and see what significance any discrepancies might have.

 

[wavy]

If you Wavy, in your one lifetime have come to realize that John and the Synoptics have different Christologies, and that John's is more loftier, do you really believe that thousands of years of devotion to those texts have failed to discover the same?

Of course not. We've tweaked a few things, and spruced some things up a bit (with new, defined methods, etc.), but I wouldn't say this modern age is just now discovering the problems that accompany any reading of the bible either as a religious document, or as a literary or historical interest.

Even the Evangelist himself surely understood that his Gospel was different in many respects from the Synoptics. The question, in the end, is whether or not the Gospel of John, in its inner logic, stands consistent with the previous testimonies while bringing their latent implications to the fore.

I agree with the wing of scholars who believe the Johannine gospel was written independently (if not unwittingly) from the Synoptics. It simply represents a different, although not entirely unequable, viewpoint. That's to the Johannine author's credit. If he were aware of the Synoptics, I could easily charge him with reworking and manipulating their material.

But anyway, I think many bible scholars (most of whom are Christian, so it's understandable) read a little too much into the gospels. I honestly don't think either author cared about the other gospels or were trying to complement them.

From the beginning the Christian Church chose to read the New Testament as a harmonious whole, simply because it began on the pre-supposition of faith and trusted in the Holy Spirit, entering, therefore, into a mindset far closer to the Evangelists themselves than the historical critics of today.

Right, so in other words their whole outlook is biased.

Like Catholic Crusader, I suspect part of your difficulty has been your decision to read the New Testament as simply your own independent endeavour. As you yourself admitted, left alone with the shackles of fundamentalist literalism undone, the Scriptures can become puddy. This should disturb us, so taking the text before the history of its hermeneutic would be wise.

Additionally, I think some historical humility should be in order when we open these texts. Ancient is not a synonymn for "ignorant". I guess the question is, what are the Evangelists really saying? If we actually start on the basis of their intended message, if we begin with the underlying unity and perhaps "essence" of the Gospel then from there we can proceed and see what significance any discrepancies might have.

Again, it's just my opinion, but I think you're reading far too much into them. I see no reason to believe in any gospel 'essence'. Of course, if you're already Christian, you can do that if you like. But to those extrinsic inquirers this means little. The only 'unity' one can objectively see is (i) a cocentric tradition in a dynamic (and notorious) historical figure. (ii) literary dependence upon the OT or between the gospels themselves (such as Matthew's/Luke's dependence upon Mark).


~Eric

 

[Devekut]

Perhaps despite the saying of John that "these things are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God", there is a certain danger, and especially so today, in using the Gospels as a kind of "proof text" for the reality of Jesus, as though they are primarily a set of empirical evidence so that if we were certain about their historicity there would be no need for faith and we would be left regarding our salvation a mere event to be studied like Napoleon's Battle of Waterloo.

When we regard the Gospels in this way, when we see them solely as empirical pieces to be studied, we are already so far away from them in their heart that they are bound to become fragmentary and even useless.

Not only do the Gospels flow out of the experience of faith, but its message, I think, presupposes that we are already in agreement with certain facts about its world. Only from there can they do their part in the task of "convincing" the world. And they alone are not there to convince us, but the role of the living Christian Community, the receptacle of Revelation, has always been to flesh out their message, to present to us their reality, infact, to make their reality more clear. Thus to pursue the Gospel truth independently is an impoverished approach from the start, in our opinion.

Right, so in other words their whole outlook is biased.

Yes, of course. There comes a point when one is so busy trying to be objective, trying to word himself out of existence in order to get the clear picture, that the picture is bound to become nothing but a set of incoherencies. The bias of the Church in reading the Scriptures, I truly believe, is part of that leap of faith neccessary to make sense of the world. It is that bias that says: yes it is true, there is an essential meaning to the world, man really is special and created, and there really is something wrong with how we've proceeded since.

 

[MarkT]

There are two major discrepancies I want to point out between Matthew and Luke in their Nativities which are as follows:

1) Matthew's story has Joseph and Mary living in Bethlehem when Jesus was born while Luke places their home in Nazareth and attempts to place them in the traditional Bethlehem by an unhistorical census (see Luke ii.1-5).

Luke gives us a little more detail. Mary was in Nazareth when the angel Gabriel was sent from God. Luke 1:26 And Luke tells us Joseph and Mary, who was with child, went to Bethlehem to be enrolled. 'And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David.' Luke 2:4

2) Matthew mentions a flight to Egypt to make a scriptural connection with Hosea xi.1 (see Matthew ii.13-15), while Luke completely omits this tale and doesn't allow time in his chronology for a flight to Egypt.

Luke tells us they were staying at an inn when Jesus was born. And shepherds came to see him. And at the end of eight days, he was circumsized and called Jesus. Matthew actually tells us about the flight to Egypt to avoid Herod.

Matthew narrates that Jesus is born in Bethlehem and magi arrive to worship him since they 'saw his star' (Matthew ii.1-12). Jesus is anywhere around 2 years old at this time as indicated by Matthew ii.16.

Nope. The star was a portent of the coming of the Messiah. We might guess that the star appeared two years before Jesus was born. That would explain why Herod wanted every child two and under killed.

There is no mention of Luke's shepherds who visited when Jesus was newborn at the stable (see Luke ii.7-20). When the magi in Matthew arrive in Bethlehem to worship Jesus, Matthew states they came to 'the house'

House/Inn? What's the difference?

, indicating Mary and Joseph's home was in Bethlehem (they're still there two years after his birth)--much unlike Luke's story where they're there temporarily for a census and Jesus was born on a farm because there wasn't room anywhere else during the bustle and hustle of the census.

Completely wrong.

In fact, Luke directly states that Mary and Joseph were living in Nazareth (Luke i.26-27; ii.4).

Before they went to Bethlehem.

Matthew narrates that after Herod decides to kill Jesus shortly after the Magi's arrival (this entire event is omitted by Luke and Herod is never mentioned at all), Joseph is warned in a dream by an angel to go to Egypt immediately, where the holy family stays until the death of Herod (Matthew ii.13-18). Remember Jesus is anywhere around two years old when they leave for Egypt.

No Jesus wasn't two years old when they fled to Egypt.

Out of Egypt:

Matthew narrates that after Herod died an angel came to Joseph again and tells him to go back to Israel (Matthew ii.19-21). Joseph had a mind to go back to Judea (presumably back to Bethlehem), but was afraid to do so because Herod's son now reigned there, so instead he goes to Nazareth in Galilee. This is how the account reads:

After Herod died they returned to Nazareth. The angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph saying, 'Rise, take the child and his mother, and go to 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 This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene." (Matthew ii.22-23)

Yep. He was afraid to go to Judea. I think he would have had to pass through Judea to get to the kingdom of Israel.

These verses further highlight that Joseph's home was in Bethlehem in Judea (or else why would he want to go back there?) and that he came to live in Nazareth in Galilee to fulfill some non-existent prophecy about Jesus being called a Nazarene. Jesus was about two years old when they left for Egypt and upon the return and the subsequent move to Nazareth, he must have been even older. In any case, he and his family made their home in Nazareth when he was a young boy according to Matthew. This directly contradicts Luke who tells us that Mary and Joseph were already living in Nazareth even before Jesus was born (see above) and were only in Bethlehem for a census. After Jesus was born in Bethlehem, named and circumcised the 8th day after his birth (Luke ii.21) Luke writes:


And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord

(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "EVERY firstborn MALE THAT OPENS THE WOMB SHALL BE CALLED HOLY TO THE LORD"),

and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, "A PAIR OF TURTLEDOVES OR TWO YOUNG PIGEONS." (Luke ii.22-24)




These laws concerning circumcision and purification can be found in Leviticus which reads:


"Speak to the sons of Israel, saying: 'When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean.

'On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

'Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed. (Leviticus xii.1-4)


It goes on to prescribe what to bring as a sacrifice to the Temple/sanctuary, as Luke states, but mark the seven days and the thirty-three days. If you add them you get forty days. So after Mary's uncleanliness of forty days, she then enters the Temple (in Jerusalem, which is in Judea if you don't know, close to Bethlehem) and offers her sacrifice, just as Luke states. So Jesus is only forty days old. But mark what Luke states after this process was finished:


When they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city of Nazareth. (Luke ii.39)

We don't know how long they were in Bethlehem (to be enrolled) But apparently they were in the area as long as it took to be purified and to offer a sacrifice according to the law.

Luke says they returned to Nazareth, where they were already staying. There's no mention of a flight to Egypt, and Joseph and Mary return to Nazareth with Jesus who's a baby not much more than a month old--not a young boy as in Matthew's Nativity. They go there because they stay there, not to fulfill any prophecy as in Matthew (who's trying hard to make Jesus fulfill as many 'prophecies' as he can to appeal to the Jews to whom he's obviously writing so that they can believe he is the Messiah and the Son of God).

[/quote]

Well, Luke says they returned to Nazareth after they had performed everything according to the law. Apparently this is what Luke knows (or has heard). However, Matthew tells us about their time in Egypt. Are we going to call Luke a liar because he didn't hear about their flight to Egypt? Of course not. That's why we have more than one gospel.

Essentially Jesus was born in Bethlehem and grew up in Nazareth.

 

[wavy]

Hello, MarkT.

You would do well to actually read this thread before responding. Your points have been dealt with, and many of them are irrelevant.


Thanks,
~Eric

 

[MarkT]

You would do well to actually read this thread before responding. Your points have been dealt with, and many of them are irrelevant.

I did wavy. What makes you think I didn't?

You know, these accounts are not historical because some phony historian wrote them. Calling someone a 'historian' who never witnessed anything is an oxymoron. These accounts are historical because they were written by honest people; real people without guile, witnesses, some eyewitnesses, some who wrote what they heard from the eyewitnesses. They are not intended for phonies.

 

[wavy]

I did wavy. What makes you think I didn't?

The fact that I deal with your objections (among others) throughout this thread.

You know, these accounts are not historical because some phony historian wrote them. Calling someone a 'historian' who never witnessed anything is an oxymoron. These accounts are historical because they were written by honest people; real people without guile, witnesses, some eyewitnesses, some who wrote what they heard from the eyewitnesses. They are not intended for phonies.

Relevance?


Thanks,
~Eric

 

[MarkT]

The fact that I deal with your objections (among others) throughout this thread.

I don't think so.

 

[Arphaxad]

Hi Josh! :D

You asked about the name "Arphaxad." Actually I picked it out of the OT because every time I registered on a Christian website every screen name I picked had already been taken. So I searched through the OT looking for the most unusual name I could find, and "Arphaxad" was it. Sure enough, nobody had ever picked "Arphaxad" as a screen name. Arphaxad was Noah's grandson by Shem. He lived to be 438 years old. I'm going to do a lot better than that though! :D

About 5 years later someone asked me about the meaning of "Arphaxad" and after looking it up on Google, I began to think "my choice" of "Arphaxad" might not have been just an accident of chance, because it means "one who releases," which is exactly what I try my best to be in the Body of Christ. There really is a lot of "releasing" to be done before we see some meaningful unity in the Lord's Body here on Earth.

Best Blessings,
"Arph"
------------

 

[cyberjosh]

LOL, thanks for the info Arph. Interesting screen name. ;) Sometimes I'll go by Yeshua, since I am (after all) named after Joshua in the Bible and even more importantly my Saviour (Yeshua/Jesus).

~Josh

 

[OnFireForChrist]

2 Peter 3:16 "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."

2 Peter 1:20 "Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation."

As for me, I am an amateur when it comes to analysis of the Bible, but I know many great thinkers have analyzed this book and studied it and dedicated their lives to it came to find many of the depths of the book, and have understood ways in which the Scriptures are not contradicted in which I am not aware, and they have much more knowledge about theology and the background and even some other sources other than the Bible passed down even from the Apostles' and the Early Church's time. There are many things in it that are too deep for us to understand, and if taken at face value, we won't find it, and even if we dedicate our whole lives to study of it, we can still not expect to know everything. In all honesty, I confess my ignorance in reconciling differences between all the books of the Bible, but that not withstanding, I have faith that the Bible is the inerrant word of God because God has said that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church (Matt 16:18), the pillar and groundwork of Truth (1 Tim 3:15). And we are not God, that we should understand all things, but man, with finite minds. Taken face-on, and erroneously, we can see many various contradictions in what is said, but if you ever read some of the things that St. Augustine wrote, one verse can have 5 different correct interpretations, and then there could be even more correct and incorrect interpretations of that same verse. There are reasons why men spend their whole lives studying it, because interpretation of the Bible is a complex thing, not just a simple endeavor that can take a day, month, week, year, or lifetime. It may take us until the end of the world.

I confess I don't have a good answer to you, wavy, but I know these things and I have faith in my God and in His Holy Church. While I don't revel in my ignorance, I'm not going to stand here and try to give you reasons I don't have. If I ever do come upon some wisdom that will help you, I will surely let you know.

 

[jamescarvin]

I would have to agree with the idea that both Matthew and Luke gave historically accurate accounts. What seem like contradictions at first tend to complete the picture. I believe they went to Jerusalem every year at Passover, but that they also had to go to Bethlehem during the census right when Mary was about to give birth, several months prior to the Passover. This presented a disruption in plans and no doubt they made plans for an extended stay, and did have relatives in Bethlehem, but their primary home was Nazareth, where also their closest relatives lived.

The time of the visit of the Magi seems to be connected with the star they saw. If they were Babylonian astrologers this would have been related to a date of birth but that information is incomplete and we don't know whether there was a big star that was supernatural, or whether it was a normal constellation. If it was a normal constellation it would not have lasted for two years, but neither is it necessary that it would if they were able to identify the location and time of brith based on what they previously saw. In other words, it would not have had to be supsended. This also would explain why Herod would have had to follow them rather than just follow the star.

Moreover, if they were wise, possibly kings, they would have known to send fact finders ahead of them so they would know exactly where to go. In other words, they were in contact with the family. Again, if they were from Babylon, they also would have possessed the Scriptures and would have known that the Messiah was to come from Behtlehem Ephrathah. There lingered a huge Jewish community in Babylon at that time.

However, what they did was come to Jerusalem, not Bethlehem. and they said they "had seen" his star in the East, not that the star was above their heads. And Matthew said "when Jesus was born" not "just as Jesus was being born." This indicates that the Magi arrived later than the birth itself, which is consistent with the dreams of both Joseph and the Magi themselves, warning against Herod, which apparently occurred at the time of the Passover when Jesus was two years old, which explains why all the children up to the age of two were killed, not just the infants.

I'm not saying dogmatically that the texts can contain no error. But I don't just automatically assume that it is an error I am seeing whenever I find what looks like a contradiction. It is not just about Matthew and Luke, but those who copied their Gospels, not necessarily accurately. (We do not know, for instance, which language came first, Aramaic or Greek. When it comes to the four Gospels anyway, we do have the benefit of the Peshitta.)

So they lived in Nazareth, but later fled to Egypt.

The sequence goes something like … After the 40 days cleansing they returned to Nazareth. A few months after this would have been the Passover so they would have returned to Jerusalem and probably stayed in Bethlehem again, then they probably returned to Nazareth and then returned back to Jerusalem one year later for Passover again, and again staying with relatives in Bethlehem. Then the dreams happened and the fleeing, probably right at the time of the Passover...

…making both Luke and Matthew correct in every word they said regarding the events. The idea of the Nativity has the Magi kneeling in a cattle stall. This is not what happened. The shepherds may well have done this but not the Magi.

As for Luke having less personal contact with Jesus, he seems to be a level headed detail oriented writer. Tradition has it that he met the holy family personally. That is how he gathered their genealogy. The fact that the genealogies disagree is explained by Africanus/Eusebius - Church History Book 1:7 as a matter of blood verses obligatory genealogy having to do with the duty of siblings of the deceased to father children on their behalf.

Once again, rather than saying "hey this is error!" we can say, "wow, we have a very complete picture of what happened here!" And the fact that we have not one but two people giving testimony shows that they didn't simply copy from one another, even if in other parts they obviously used common sources and may have done so.

That's my take and I'm sticking to it …

 

[Alabaster]

Nice reply Devecut.

His response was just a dodge (no offense to him). Matthew and Luke do not have to fabricate historical events to make theological points. No one does. Matthew's history is supposed to be taken as is. So is Luke's. They contradict each other, therefore the scriptures contain error.

That Luke and Mark were not apostles (I don't believe, along with majority biblical historical and critical scholarship, that the authors of Matthew and John were apostles either) makes no difference and is irrelevant. It's in the bible. If the bible is supposed to be the inerrant word of God then Matthew vs. Luke as presented in the OP are a problem (one of many).

You make the gospel accounts contradict, but they don't.

 

[dadof10]

Wavy,

I have an issue with your OP. Technically the two narratives don't contradict. The definition (from Wikipedia) of contradiction is "In classical logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical inversions of each other. Illustrating a general tendency in applied logic, Aristotle’s law of noncontradiction states that “One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.â€Â

You have said, and rightfully so, that some people here are arguing from "silence", that there are periods of time that are unaccounted for. The "maybes" that they give for those periods of time may not be probable, but they are, at least possible, and once you admit that, contradiction is excluded. You may have "difficulties" or "problems", you may say that one opinion is far more logical than all the rest, but you cannot say the two versions contradict.

I also have a problem with this, it was addressed to CC:

I believe all of it has to coincide (even down to the 'minutiae') or it all must be rejected. Some might raise the objection that that's a false dilemma and that instead we should seek out middle ground. The problem for me with that is what constitutes a 'minor' discrepancy or inaccuracy? How broad can you stretch what's supposed to be the--as you say--'major truths'?

No multiple accounts of ANY event throughout history have coincided down to the last detail. Forget about all the recorded battles and elections. Forget about all the great scientific, literary and military events recorded throughout history. All you have to do is read two different newspapers’ perspective on last night’s baseball game to get different details. It’s simply human nature to focus on some details and ignore others. Do you reject ALL recorded history, or only those historical accounts contained in Scripture?

 

[jamescarvin]

I've already shown why I find no contradiction. One thing I think should be mentioned is how short the distance is from Bethlehem to Nazareth. I know that travel was by donkey, but after the baby was born, the discomfort factor was no longer an issue and Mary was young if Joseph was old. The distance from Bethlehem to Nazareth is 70 miles, but to skirt Samaritans going around by the East side of the Jordan might have stretched travel to about 80 miles. At 15 miles a day we're talking about a week.

They certainly had incentive to be in both locations since they had relatives in both locations, and like all pious Israel, went to Jerusalem annually for Passover. I really don't find anything hard in this at all. What's the problem?

 

[dadof10]

I've already shown why I find no contradiction. One thing I think should be mentioned is how short the distance is from Bethlehem to Nazareth. I know that travel was by donkey, but after the baby was born, the discomfort factor was no longer an issue and Mary was young if Joseph was old. The distance from Bethlehem to Nazareth is 70 miles, but to skirt Samaritans going around by the East side of the Jordan might have stretched travel to about 80 miles. At 15 miles a day we're talking about a week.

They certainly had incentive to be in both locations since they had relatives in both locations, and like all pious Israel, went to Jerusalem annually for Passover. I really don't find anything hard in this at all. What's the problem?

If you're addressing me, I find no problem either. I think both Matthew and Luke are historically accurate. This is one of the "maybes" that I mentioned. It's possible it happened just like you wrote in an earlier post, I don't know. The point is, when I read the text I find it possible, which rules out contradiction.

 

[dadof10]

*bumped for my own personal perusal.*

~eric

And bumped again for mine. :D

 

[wavy]

I would have to agree with the idea that both Matthew and Luke gave historically accurate accounts. What seem like contradictions at first tend to complete the picture. I believe they went to Jerusalem every year at Passover, but that they also had to go to Bethlehem during the census right when Mary was about to give birth, several months prior to the Passover. This presented a disruption in plans and no doubt they made plans for an extended stay, and did have relatives in Bethlehem, but their primary home was Nazareth, where also their closest relatives lived.

In other words, you're reading things into the narratives that simply aren't there and disallowing the separate gospels of Matthew and Luke to speak for themselves. Perhaps a simpler explanation would be that both accounts relay two different realities that occured in different dimensions of existence and so therefore do not contradict.

See what I did there?

You're free to hold your own opinions and free to express them. However, for the reason mentioned above, I must personally dismiss your explanation as mere ad hoc speculation that lacks a basis anywhere in the gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[wavy]

Wavy,

I have an issue with your OP. Technically the two narratives don't contradict. The definition (from Wikipedia) of contradiction is "In classical logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical inversions of each other. Illustrating a general tendency in applied logic, Aristotle’s law of noncontradiction states that “One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.â€Â

You have said, and rightfully so, that some people here are arguing from "silence", that there are periods of time that are unaccounted for. The "maybes" that they give for those periods of time may not be probable, but they are, at least possible, and once you admit that, contradiction is excluded. You may have "difficulties" or "problems", you may say that one opinion is far more logical than all the rest, but you cannot say the two versions contradict.

There are more than 'periods of time that are unaccounted for' (see examples in my posts throughout this thread), but anyway, more to the point of your post here, taken at face-value, the narratives do contradict at a few key points. There are certain aspects of both narratives that are inconsistent within the time frames given and they both cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense in accord with the law of non-contradiction. In other words, the texts, taken at face-value (which is always more probable than foreign and ad hoc possibilities such as proffered throughout this thread) are incompatible and therefore, in my opinion, contradict one another.

I also have a problem with this, it was addressed to CC:

I believe all of it has to coincide (even down to the 'minutiae') or it all must be rejected. Some might raise the objection that that's a false dilemma and that instead we should seek out middle ground. The problem for me with that is what constitutes a 'minor' discrepancy or inaccuracy? How broad can you stretch what's supposed to be the--as you say--'major truths'?

No multiple accounts of ANY event throughout history have coincided down to the last detail. Forget about all the recorded battles and elections. Forget about all the great scientific, literary and military events recorded throughout history. All you have to do is read two different newspapers’ perspective on last night’s baseball game to get different details. It’s simply human nature to focus on some details and ignore others. Do you reject ALL recorded history, or only those historical accounts contained in Scripture?

[/quote]

I made that point then in reference to the bible, which is supposed to be the Judeo-Christian god's word, not in general reference to all historical accounts. If there are errors in it, just as in other historical documents, then I have no reason so assume that an impeccable god wished to communicate his message to us. Rather, humans make mistakes and since the bible makes mistakes, it's obviously a product of human, rather than divine, design.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[Alabaster]

I made that point then in reference to the bible, which is supposed to be the Judeo-Christian god's word,

Ummm, no---it is God Almighty--the God of the universe's Word. I don;t think you realize that you have created a perch for yourself above Him, and are judging Him. He doesn't like that much...