New testament contradictions.

by Anti-Christ 48 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  BurnTheShips

  1-Jesus birth. In Matthew 2:1 the bible says that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the great but in Luke 2:2 it says that Jesus was born during the first census of Israel when Quirinius was governor of Syria. The problem with this is that Herod died in 4 BC and the census was in 6-7 AD 10 years after Herod died.

  Assumptions made on incomplete information. This is not necessarily a contradiction. Quirinius may have been appointed to govern Syria more than once, and there is archeological evidence that suggests this, if not conclusively.

  The "problem" which this passage has posed is the result of our lack of historical information outside Luke and of several assumptions which have been made about the relation of these events to similar ones in secular sources. The foundation of the critics' attacks on Luke is a false correlation of his account with Josephus' account of the later census in AD 6. The correlation rests on two facts: (1) a census in Judea, and (2) the mention of the name of Quirinius. It ignores Luke's words "this is the first census made while Quirinius was ruling Syria."

  A thorough treatment here: http://www.ibri.org/DVD-1/RRs/RR004/04census.htm
• 

  BurnTheShips

  if you want to refute any of this I need proof

  If you want your assertion of contradiction to stick on these two narratives, you will need to prove the presence of a contradiction. The burden of proof is on you. You accuse these different accounts of contradiction, the burden of proof is on you. I deny that the contradiction exists. The burden is not on me. For how can one prove a negative? All I need are plausible or reasonable explanations that harmonize the apparent contradiction. What is really relevant is whether the explanations shows that the point of contention is not necessarily a contradiction. Your assertion of contradiction then becomes, not an obvious truth, but merely a belief.

  Burn
• 

  snowbird

  Your comments are welcome.

  I will take you at your word.

  If anyone in truly interested enough to pursue this subject, all that person has to do is type INCONSISTENCIES OR CONTRADICTIONS SURROUNDING THE BIRTH OF JESUS into any search engine. You'll find a plethora of information from which you can, as my estranged Jamaican hubby would say, pick sense out of nonsense.

  Thank you.

  Sylvia
• 

  MissingLink

  Thanks for the post a/c.

  here you are talking about 2 different accounts of a story. do you think that you and i could tell something we witnessed the same way. you guys read too much into stuff.if i won a million dollars does it matter how i won it or what. who cares as long as you know i got the money. you will most likely not prove contradictions in the Bible cause everytime someone tries to do that it gets refuted.lets get to the meat of the matter

  This IS the meat of the matter. If the bible books dont agree on something that 2 authors go way out on a limb on and give loads of references to attempt at proof of their authenticity, then these scriptures obviously aren't "inspired".
• 

  BurnTheShips

  If the bible books dont agree on something that 2 authors go way out on a limb on and give loads of references to attempt at proof of their authenticity, then these scriptures obviously aren't "inspired".

  If the 2 authors you mention are Luke and Matthew, with respect to their nativity narratives, then you fail to take into account that they are each bringing out specific details that would be of importance to their intended audiences. Luke wrote for a gentile audience, and Matthew for a Jewish one. Ancient witnesses (Papias, Eusebius) have it that Matthew was written in Hebrew characters.

  Matthew, for example is conveying something very specific when he includes in his account the guiding star, the Magi, Herod's assasination attempt, the slaughter of the innocents, and the flight into Egypt. These images call to the mind of Matthew's Jewish audience something important about their history. Matthew was addressing the people of the covenant who wanted to remain faithful to that covenant. Matthew paints Jesus as the new Moses who has the God-given authority give the new Law. We see this in the form that Matthew's Gospel is arranged in. It is in 5 sections, a reflection of the Pentateuch. He describes Jesus giving the new law on a mount, just as Moses did. We see Jesus described against the backdrop of the history of his intended audience.

  Burn
• 

  Anti-Christ

  Was Quirinius Twice Governor?

  Assumptions made on incomplete information. This is not necessarily a contradiction. Quirinius may have been appointed to govern Syria more than once, and there is archaeological evidence that suggests this, if not conclusively.

  I'm sorry but there is no proof what so ever that Quirinius was govern of Syria twice. I looked at all the evidence and that never happen in Roman history. I put a link up with all the information about these so called archaeological evidence. I hope the link works.

  If you want your assertion of contradiction to stick on these two narratives, you will need to prove the presence of a contradiction. The burden of proof is on you . You accuse these different accounts of contradiction, the burden of proof is on you . I deny that the contradiction exists. The burden is not on me. For how can one prove a negative? All I need are plausible or reasonable explanations that harmonize the apparent contradiction. What is really relevant is whether the explanations shows that the point of contention is not necessarily a contradiction. Your assertion of contradiction then becomes, not an obvious truth, but merely a belief.

  Sorry but like my dad would say, you got it all bass ackward, I'm not the one claiming that the bible is the word of god I'm providing historical accounts that these two events contradic each other, you are the one with the burden of proof, that the bible is truly inspired from the almighty creator of the universe.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  that the bible is truly inspired from the almighty creator of the universe.

  I do believe that statement, however, I do not assert that the Bible is historically inerrant. I have nothing to "prove" regarding the historicity of the events described. My faith does not rest on that foundation. So, you see, as far as I am concerned, the burden rests on the shoulder of you, who started the thread.

  Burn
• 

  BurnTheShips

  I'm sorry but there is no proof what so ever that Quirinius was govern of Syria twice.

  So what is your explanation for the apparent discrepancy on the two accounts?

  There are a variety of explanations:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius#Sixteenth_to_eighteenth_centuries

  Calvin maintained that the census was issued towards the end of Herod’s reign, but tht it was not performed until the reign of Quirinius.

  Johann Leonhard Hug thought that the census was carried out by Quirinius, while the province was governed by Saturninus.

  Burn
• 

  Anti-Christ

  I do believe that statement, however, I do not assert that the Bible is historically inerrant. I have nothing to "prove" regarding the historicity of the events described. My faith does not rest on that foundation. So, you see, there burden rests on the shoulder of you, who started the thread.

  Burn

  Ah okay I get it now. Well I did bring a lot of proof but if your are going to ignore historical accounts then I can not prove anything with out them because these two verses are not historically accurate but if you don't care about that then don't claim I have no proof, just say you are going to ignore my proof.

  What about the other problem with the verses? I you don't remember I will quote the two verses for you. Matthew 2: 19 Now when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, 20 saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the young Child’s life are dead.” 21 Then he arose, took the young Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel.
  22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea instead of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being warned by God in a dream, he turned aside into the region of Galilee. 23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”

  Now compare with luke 2: 39 So when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth. 40 And the Child grew and became strong in spirit, [ k ] filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him.

  
  41 His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. 42 And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast. 43 When they had finished the days, as they returned, the Boy Jesus lingered behind in Jerusalem. And Joseph and His mother [ l ] did not know it; 44 but supposing Him to have been in the company, they went a day’s journey, and sought Him among their relatives and acquaintances. 45 So when they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking Him. 46 Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. 47 And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers. 48 So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously.”
  49 And He said to them, “Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?” 50 But they did not understand the statement which He spoke to them.
• 

  MissingLink

  then you fail to take into account that they are each bringing out specific details that would be of importance to their intended audiences.

  Not at all. I never suggested that each should present 100% the same material. I think we can all agree that the point of having these multiple gospels is to have different perspectives on the story. Where each author will focus on the things that interest him, things he has an aptitude for, or as you point out - their intended audience.

  But why did they include all of those details? Are "All Scriptures Inspired"? Even the parts that are historically incorrect?