Discrepancies In the Nativity Story

[volgadon]

Johnny, that kind of route doesn't make any sense. They would have had to travel due east through some very rough and barren territory, then travel up through some even rougher in order to cross back west, all the time with a very young child. Brutal, barren hills with little water or shelter along the way, through an area infested by highwaymen and marauding nomads, exorbitant Nabataean tolls, murderous sun for half the year and devastating flash floods the other half, and so on. The coastal road was farily safe and had settlements and roadside facilities at convenient intervals.

The only trouble in Joseph's mind was Archelaus.

[JohnnyRudick]

Johnny, that kind of route doesn't make any sense. They would have had to travel due east through some very rough and barren territory, then travel up through some even rougher in order to cross back west, all the time with a very young child. Brutal, barren hills with little water or shelter along the way, through an area infested by highwaymen and marauding nomads, exorbitant Nabataean tolls, murderous sun for half the year and devastating flash floods the other half, and so on. The coastal road was farily safe and had settlements and roadside facilities at convenient intervals.

The only trouble in Joseph's mind was Archelaus.

OK, You seem to be a lot more familiar with this area.

And this you believe to be the condition of the area at the time of the early years of Jesus?

The only reason I say this is the Old Testament in many places seem to lay a parallel

with Jesus birth in Bethlehem, Harrods murderous assault on the young males, the flight

into Egypt and the return with that of Israel the Children of Jacob.

The Old Testament seems to have the same events in Chronological order so I figured that it would be that Joseph would have headed through Judea, but learning what he did was forced to follow the same route of Joshuah.

All I have to go by is the Scriptures.

I try to not use much else.

Guess I was wrong again.

Maybe you can send me more info on this

to study as I can.

Bro. Rudick

[volgadon]

Bro Rudick, I really enjoy reading your posts, You have a way of making your points simple yet clear. They've given me a lot to think about.

This was the condition of the area, and it was also the wilderness which John and Jesus later frequented.

I'll see what I've got, what sort of thing did you have in mind?

Edited June 30, 2009 by volgadon

[rameumptom]

It recently came to my attention that the birth narratives of Jesus in the gospels of Matthew and Luke are irreconcilably contradictary. According to Matthew, the Savior and his parents are from Bethlehem, stay there for two years after Jesus' birth, fly to Egypt to escape King Herod, and arrive at Nazareth for the first time once Herod is dead. In Luke, Mary and Joseph are from Nazareth, travel to Bethlehem for the census, stay there only a month during her purification according to Levitical law, and then return back home to Nazareth. There is no flight to Egypt, no wise men following a star, no death decree by Herod.

After reading these narratives closely, it becomes obvious that Matthew and Luke are telling two totally different, contradicting stories. Both of them can't be true. The prophet, Nephi, prophesied that Jesus' mother would be from Nazareth but only says that Jesus would be born in "the land of Jerusalem". There are no other places in the standard works that specify where Jesus was born or how he got there.

My 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?

I'll try and answer your original question. Yes there are irreconcilable differences in the two nativity stories. Just reading Ehrman's "Jesus, Interrupted" will help many see these differences.

However, the Church does not worry about which stories are historically accurate, but which are inspirational and give us a decent understanding of the Christ.

We also realize that the story of the Garden of Eden goes against modern science. We do not worry about it. In fact, the Church's official stance on evolution is one of neutrality, rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar's.

We believe the Bible, "insofar as it is translated correctly." Joseph Smith was bold enough to claim that the Song of Solomon was "not inspired." That doesn't mean the SoS isn't of any value or ancient, it just wasn't inspired of God.

And the view of the Church concerning the Apocrypha (see D&C 91) is that there is much inspiration and true in it, and much of the interpolations of mankind. So it is with all the scriptures to one extent or another. Even Peter warns us about Paul's writings being difficult to understand, and those not led by the Spirit can wrest them to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). Moroni opines about the weakness in writing his people have (Ether 12), and Joseph Smith was virtually illiterate when he began translating the Book of Mormon.

Of course there are errors in the scriptures. The story of the nativity was written down decades after the death of Christ, and obviously there were at least two oral versions that were available at the time.

But as Davis Bitton, Church historian, once taught, "I don't have a testimony of the history of the Church." I personally do not have a testimony of the history of the scriptures, either.

I DO have a testimony of the divinity of Jesus Christ, and his atonement. I also have a testimony of the Restored Church, etc.

[JohnnyRudick]

Bro Rudick, I really enjoy reading your posts, You have a way of making your points simple yet clear. They've given me a lot to think about.

This was the condition of the area, and it was also the wilderness which John and Jesus later frequented.

I'll see what I've got, what sort of thing did you have in mind?

Well, as I said.

When God Called His Son out of Egypt they came in across south of the Southern Desert across he bottom

of the Dead sea and up the west side of the Jordan and crossed into Judeas northern area.

This would take Jesus and His family through Harod Antipas' area instead of through where

Archelaus held power.

I know it was a tough road, but sometimes things have to be fulfilled a certain way to fulfill Scripture.

Is there anything that shows what would have made it impossible for them to follow Joshua's route?

Bro. Rudick

[volgadon]

Not impossible, of course, but highly improbable. Especially for a small family. In the wintertime it was nearly impassable. That area gets ferocious flash floods. In the summertime you have no food, feed and water.

Until you've been there, it is hard to appreciate.

You still have to cross Archelaus's realm and then there are Nabataean tolls to paym and Antipas'sm and then Archelaus's again.

[JohnnyRudick]

Not impossible, of course, but highly improbable. Especially for a small family. In the wintertime it was nearly impassable. That area gets ferocious flash floods. In the summertime you have no food, feed and water.

Until you've been there, it is hard to appreciate.

You still have to cross Archelaus's realm and then there are Nabataean tolls to paym and Antipas'sm and then Archelaus's again.

Wonder how it was done then.

Do you have any ideas?

I feel Very strongly that the return back from Egypt mirrors the entrance of Joshua.

Bro. Rudick

[Enlil-An]

Originally posted by valgadon

Right, except that the small part of the coastal road given to Salome came under Archelaus's control.

You're right. My mistake. But that creates a problem for Matthew's account because going to Galilee doesn't keep the divine family from having to travel through Judea. So how is that a valid solution for keeping Jesus safe from Archelaus?

You are basing your arguments on the KJV. I'm still waiting for someone who knows Koine Greek to tell me that it doesn't say going in or through where the English has thither and that the word is warned, as you claim and not commanded or instructed.

New International Version

"So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth."

New American Standard Bible

"So Joseph got up, took the Child and His mother, and came into 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..."

The Message

"Joseph obeyed. He got up, took the child and his mother, and reentered Israel. When he heard, though, that Archelaus had succeeded his father, Herod, as king in Judea, he was afraid to go there. But then Joseph was directed in a dream to go to the hills of Galilee. On arrival, he settled in the village of Nazareth."

Amplifed Bible

"Then he awoke and arose and [tenderly] took the Child and His mother and came into the land of Israel. But because he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in the place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being divinely warned in a dream, he withdrew to the region of Galilee. He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth..."

New Living Translation

"So Joseph got up and returned to the land of Israel with Jesus and his mother. But when he learned that the new ruler of Judea was Herod’s son Archelaus, he was afraid to go there. Then, after being warned in a dream, he left for the region of Galilee. So the family went and lived in a town called Nazareth."

For a list of more of the same, click here BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages. and type Matthew 2:22 in the search. Do you believe that all these english translations of the original greek are wrong? What would be the odds?

How are they irelevant? Let us say you read one post where I say I worked in a factory in Hatzor, my own city, and then read another where I say I live in Livnim but work in a factory in Hatzor. Which account is wrong?

Because you are speaking in the present tense. Matthew and Luke are telling a history and are speaking in the past tense. Matthew says, "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth..." but Luke says, "...they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth." Those are two totally different accounts. In Luke they are returning to the beginning point of their journey. In Matthew, they're not.

As you can't be bothered to look those up, you expect me to take the time to translate them into English?

Or quote an english version of the source you're citing, absolutely. At least provide a link to the source on-line if you can't be bothered to post the wording.

I'm sorry, but you haven't. As for the scholarly works, I've read many over many years, and quite a bit of that isn't in English. I'll try and post a short bibliography.

What good will that do if they're not even in english?

Volgadon, no one is going to trudge through all the "scholarly works" that you've read just to find the one or two paragraphes that supposedly support your arguements. The only logical and decent thing for you to do is post those parts that support your position and the details of the source so we can look it up for ourselves if we want. That's how on-line debates of this kind are done.

Here are your words. "Professional historians agree with me on this. I'm not just referring to one of Matthew's prophecies. I'm talking about all of them. All of them are bogus." (where is the exact reference BTW).

Here's one: "Matthew chooses innumerable passages and verses that in thier original context had nothing to do with a messiah, and by applying them to Jesus makes them seem so." From Jesus to Christ by Paula Fredriksen, page 38.

"For example, Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 to show that the virgin birth was predicted in scripture...

No where does Nephi claim that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy about the Savior. Nephi makes his own prophecy of the virgin birth and doesn't claim to get this idea from the Old Testament, like Matthew.

Corruption accounts for most of the errors and contradictory statements in ancient texts.

Corruption accounts for most of the contradictory statements found in texts of the same source. Matthew and Luke are two independent sources and the reason they disagree concerning the nativity of Jesus is because they're telling two different stories.

Their statement is the height of arrogance and wilful ignorance and contrasts with the Saviour's teachings. It does not mean that whoever wrote John was ignorant of the captivity. No, it is chauvinism in its fullest sense.

What evidence is there for this? It wasn't only the arrogant Jewish leaders who claimed to have never heard of an oral tradition of the Messiah coming out of Nazareth. The Jewish masses never heard of any such prophecies either:

John 7:40-43 "Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? So there was a division among the people because of him."

Or you could use the table of contents or index to find those sections which fit the time-frame.

Search engines make that even easier.

Try Antiquities, book XVIII, chp I, 6.

Wars, book II, chp VIII, section 1, chp XVII, 8.

Great! You're half way there. Now all you need is to post the part of your source that you feel supports your claims or a link to the quote so we can read it on-line the way I've been doing for you this whole time.

Where have you quoted an exact source and precisely where it is located?

Every scripture I've referred to that help make my point, I've posted the actual words of the scripture and their location in the Bible. You're the one who brought outside sources into this discussion. Edited July 1, 2009 by Enlil-An

[Enlil-An]

Originally posted by rameumpton

However, the Church does not worry about which stories are historically accurate, but which are inspirational and give us a decent understanding of the Christ.

The position of the Church is that the Bible was originally written by prophets under the influence of the Holy Ghost. But if historians are able to show that books like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by men who were not only under the direction of the Holy Spirit, but also embellished and invented stories of Christ to support theire particular agenda's, where does that leave the Church who believes the stories in these books to be authentic?

We believe the Bible, "insofar as it is translated correctly." Joseph Smith was bold enough to claim that the Song of Solomon was "not inspired." That doesn't mean the SoS isn't of any value or ancient, it just wasn't inspired of God.

There were many other claims Joseph Smith made about the Bilbe some of which seem to be getting debunked by modern research. Are you going to be forced to believe that Joseph Smith was inspired some of the time but not all of the time? And what if we find evidence of Joseph Smith embellishing some things himself?

We also realize that the story of the Garden of Eden goes against modern science. We do not worry about it.

Except that the unscientific things in Genesis are also backed up by the Pearl of Great Price which is supposed to be revelation from God. Is God unscientific?

Of course there are errors in the scriptures. The story of the nativity was written down decades after the death of Christ, and obviously there were at least two oral versions that were available at the time.

And what about error's in the Doctrine & Covenants or the Joseph Smith Translations of the Bible?

[JohnnyRudick]

. . . There are no other places in the standard works that specify where Jesus was born or how he got there.

My 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?

I have been bending my poor little mind trying ti figure out what your

problem is with the Scripture.

I separated out this quote of yours and can at least see what you are asking.

Matthew and Luke made it up - Jesus being born in Bethlehem.

right?

OK, here is one.

Herods coniving scribes and chief priests quoted it wrong in their pride but it is still there.

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little

among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth

unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have

been from of old, from everlasting.

Bethlehem - City of bread.

Jesus is the Bread of Life come out of the City of Bread.

John 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto

you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father

giveth you the true bread from heaven.

This was set up the first time Abraham first set foot there.

Just a little ways away from Bethlehem where Jesus, the Bread of life was

born,

Genesis 35:15 And Jacob called the name of the place where God

spake with him, Bethel.

Genesis 35:16 And they journeyed from Bethel; and there was but

a little way to come to Ephrath: and Rachel travailed, and she

had hard labour.

Genesis 35:17 And it came to pass, when she was in hard labour,

that the midwife said unto her, Fear not; thou shalt have this

son also.

Genesis 35:18 And it came to pass, as her soul was in

departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but

his father called him Benjamin.

Genesis 35:19 And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to

Ephrath, which is Bethlehem.

Was the beginning of the Abramic Covenant.

The foundation of the House of Israel.

Genesis 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of

thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house,

unto a land that I will shew thee:

Genesis 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will

bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a

blessing:

Genesis 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse

him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the

earth be blessed.

Genesis 12:4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto

him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years

old when he departed out of Haran.

Genesis 12:5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his

brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered,

and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth

to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they

came.

Genesis 12:6 And Abram passed through the land unto the place

of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in

the land.

Genesis 12:7 And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto

thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar

unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.

Genesis 12:8 And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the

east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west,

and Hai on the east: and there he builded an altar unto the LORD,

and called upon the name of the LORD.

...

Genesis 13:2 And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and

in gold.

Genesis 13:3 And he went on his journeys from the south even to

Bethel, unto the place where his tent had been at the beginning,

between Bethel and Hai;

Genesis 13:4 Unto the place of the altar, which he had make

there at the first: and there Abram called on the name of the

LORD.

And later Jacob

Genesis 28:11 And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried

there all night, because the sun was set; and he took of the

stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down

in that place to sleep.

Genesis 28:12 And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the

earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels

of God ascending and descending on it.

Genesis 28:13 And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I

am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the

land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed;

Genesis 28:14 And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth,

and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to

the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall

all the families of the earth be blessed.

Genesis 28:15 And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee

in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into

this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that

which I have spoken to thee of.

Genesis 28:16 And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said,

Surely the LORD is in this place; and I knew it not.

Genesis 28:17 And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this

place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the

gate of heaven.

Genesis 28:18 And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took

the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a

pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.

Genesis 28:19 And he called the name of that place Bethel: but

the name of that city was called Luz at the first.

Genesis 28:20 And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be

with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me

bread to eat, and raiment to put on,

Genesis 28:21 So that I come again to my father's house in

peace; then shall the LORD be my God:

Genesis 28:22 And this stone, which I have set for a pillar,

shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will

surely give the tenth unto thee.

. . .

Genesis 31:11 And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream,

saying, Jacob: And I said, Here am I.

Genesis 31:12 And he said, Lift up now thine eyes, and see, all

the rams which leap upon the cattle are ringstraked, speckled,

and grisled: for I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee.

Genesis 31:13 I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the

pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me: now arise, get thee

out from this land, and return unto the land of thy kindred.

. . .

Genesis 35:1 And God said unto Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel,

and dwell there: and make there an altar unto God, that appeared

unto thee when thou fleddest from the face of Esau thy brother.

Genesis 35:2 Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all

that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you,

and be clean, and change your garments:

Genesis 35:3 And let us arise, and go up to Bethel; and I will

make there an altar unto God, who answered me in the day of my

distress, and was with me in the way which I went.

Genesis 35:4 And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods

which were in their hand, and all their earrings which were in

their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by

Shechem.

Genesis 35:5 And they journeyed: and the terror of God was upon

the cities that were round about them, and they did not pursue

after the sons of Jacob.

Genesis 35:6 So Jacob came to Luz, which is in the land of

Canaan, that is, Bethel, he and all the people that were with

him.

Genesis 35:7 And he built there an altar, and called the place

Elbethel: because there God appeared unto him, when he fled from

the face of his brother.

From there Abraham went into Egypt and returned.

From there Jacob went into Egypt and returned.

Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and

called my son out of Egypt.

Joshua/Jesus returned from Egypt.

After leaving to save their lives.

Bro. Rudick

[JohnnyRudick]

The position of the Church is that the Bible was originally written by prophets under the influence of the Holy Ghost. But if historians are able to show that books like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by men who were not only under the direction of the Holy Spirit, but also embellished and invented stories of Christ to support theire particular agenda's, where does that leave the Church who believes the stories in these books to be authentic?

There were many other claims Joseph Smith made about the Bilbe some of which seem to be getting debunked by modern research. Are you going to be forced to believe that Joseph Smith was inspired some of the time but not all of the time? And what if we find evidence of Joseph Smith embellishing some things himself?

Except that the unscientific things in Genesis are also backed up by the Pearl of Great Price which is supposed to be revelation from God. Is God unscientific?

And what about error's in the Doctrine & Covenants or the Joseph Smith Translations of the Bible?

You really have me confused.

Do I have you confused with someone of a similar name

who posts on this thread?

Now you are sounding like me:eek:

Bro. Rudick

[volgadon]

The position of the Church is that the Bible was originally written by prophets under the influence of the Holy Ghost. But if historians are able to show that books like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by men who were not only under the direction of the Holy Spirit, but also embellished and invented stories of Christ to support theire particular agenda's, where does that leave the Church who believes the stories in these books to be authentic?

Ah yesm you've fallen into the higher criticism trap.

A more pertinent question is where does that leave your faith.

There were many other claims Joseph Smith made about the Bilbe some of which seem to be getting debunked by modern research. Are you going to be forced to believe that Joseph Smith was inspired some of the time but not all of the time? And what if we find evidence of Joseph Smith embellishing some things himself?

The key word here is seem.

Except that the unscientific things in Genesis are also backed up by the Pearl of Great Price which is supposed to be revelation from God. Is God unscientific?

No, but is our understanding of science God's understanding?

And what about error's in the Doctrine & Covenants or the Joseph Smith Translations of the Bible?

What do you have in mind.

[volgadon]

You're right. My mistake. But that creates a problem for Matthew's account because going to Galilee doesn't keep the divine family from having to travel through Judea. So how is that a valid solution for keeping Jesus safe from Archelaus?

I never made the claim that they didn't have to go through Archelaus's territory. The whole point is that despite his natural fears, Joseph remembered that God commanded this and he went through the land.

For a list of more of the same, click here BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages. and type Matthew 2:22 in the search. Do you believe that all these english translations of the original greek are wrong? What would be the odds?

So what are the odds of none of the non-English translations I consulted saying warned, but rather commanded or instructed? I checked Hebrew, Aramaic, Old Slavonic and Russian (several different ones too).

Because you are speaking in the present tense. Matthew and Luke are telling a history and are speaking in the past tense. Matthew says, "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth..." but Luke says, "...they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth." Those are two totally different accounts. In Luke they are returning to the beginning point of their journey. In Matthew, they're not.

Alright then, ammend work to worked. Which one of my statements is wrong?

Or quote an english version of the source you're citing, absolutely. At least provide a link to the source on-line if you can't be bothered to post the wording.

Why do you assume that my source is online?

What good will that do if they're not even in english?

Which is part of why I didn't provide them.

Volgadon, no one is going to trudge through all the "scholarly works" that you've read just to find the one or two paragraphes that supposedly support your arguements. The only logical and decent thing for you to do is post those parts that support your position and the details of the source so we can look it up for ourselves if we want. That's how on-line debates of this kind are done.

As I said before, your loss. If you want to make sweeping pronouncements on the veracity of the Gospels and how that impacts our LDS faith WITHOUT immersing yourself in all aspects of the topic, then that is your problem.

Here's one: "Matthew chooses innumerable passages and verses that in thier original context had nothing to do with a messiah, and by applying them to Jesus makes them seem so." From Jesus to Christ by Paula Fredriksen, page 38.

I would ask you how does the author know that they had nothing to do with a messiah.

No where does Nephi claim that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy about the Savior. Nephi makes his own prophecy of the virgin birth and doesn't claim to get this idea from the Old Testament, like Matthew.

First of all, my point was that if Nephi says she was a virgin, why do you have such a hard time believing Matthew's interpretation?

The world aalmah does not exclude virginity.

Secondly, read 2 Nephi 11. And yes, I do mean the whole chapter.

Thirdly, f I can find but three latter-day prophets and apostles who support Matthew's interpretation, will that satisfy you?

Corruption accounts for most of the contradictory statements found in texts of the same source. Matthew and Luke are two independent sources and the reason they disagree concerning the nativity of Jesus is because they're telling two different stories.

Not just in the same text.

What do you make of 1 Nephi 11:13 and Alma 7:10?

What evidence is there for this? It wasn't only the arrogant Jewish leaders who claimed to have never heard of an oral tradition of the Messiah coming out of Nazareth. The Jewish masses never heard of any such prophecies either:

John 7:40-43 "Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? So there was a division among the people because of him."

What evidence? The evidence staring you in the face. Common sense. You seem to need to have everything spelled out.

Some said. If there were no other traditions, then why would there be a division, it could be settled by simple appeal to the scriptures.

Great! You're half way there. Now all you need is to post the part of your source that you feel supports your claims or a link to the quote so we can read it on-line the way I've been doing for you this whole time.

Spare me the sarcasm. That is not a war you want to start.

All you need to do is track down the source. It isn't diffcult at all to do.

I believe the whole of Josephus is online.

Every scripture I've referred to that help make my point, I've posted the actual words of the scripture and their location in the Bible. You're the one who brought outside sources into this discussion.

Your argument is based on outside sources.

[rameumptom]

The position of the Church is that the Bible was originally written by prophets under the influence of the Holy Ghost. But if historians are able to show that books like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by men who were not only under the direction of the Holy Spirit, but also embellished and invented stories of Christ to support theire particular agenda's, where does that leave the Church who believes the stories in these books to be authentic?

The position of the Church is (and I quote) " 8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." (Article of Faith 8). There is no other official statement regarding the Bible. Now, we tend to accept the stories, regardless of whether they are factual, because we simply do not know which one is/isn't factual, plus the stories teach great things to us.

There were many other claims Joseph Smith made about the Bilbe some of which seem to be getting debunked by modern research. Are you going to be forced to believe that Joseph Smith was inspired some of the time but not all of the time? And what if we find evidence of Joseph Smith embellishing some things himself?

Did Joseph Smith ever say he was infallible? Or did he say that a prophet is only a prophet when speaking by the Holy Ghost? Just like any of us, he spoke according to his understanding and what the Spirit taught him. He did not spend time focusing on whether the stories were historically factual. He focused on doctrine. And what IF Joseph embellished? We clearly have embellishment in the Bible from the ancient prophets (or the scribes). Do we really need to have infallible prophets to have the true Church?

Except that the unscientific things in Genesis are also backed up by the Pearl of Great Price which is supposed to be revelation from God. Is God unscientific?

We do not claim the PoGP to be perfect. We believe it to be inspired. It mostly consists of revelations/beliefs of Moses and Abraham, which would have been based upon their world view. Abraham probably believed in a flat earth, and so described things from his understanding. God gives to all mankind the amount of truth they are ready to receive (Alma 29:8), which means he doesn't necessarily give us perfect scientific accounts in all things. God's goal isn't to have us perfectly understand science, but to begin to understand our relationship with Him. Symbolism works in the latter, but science requires hard facts and not symbolism.

And what about error's in the Doctrine & Covenants or the Joseph Smith Translations of the Bible?

What about them? Are you attempting to set up a straw man? Joseph Smith got some things wrong, so he must be a false prophet, because logic suggests that prophets must be perfect in science, math, English literature, quantum theory, and baking French pastries? Is that the kind of straw man you are getting at?

Why not spend some time on the things Joseph got right? How did he know to include in the Book of Moses an account of Enoch in a place called Mahujah with a man named Mahijah, who asks him questions; when the only other place this is found is in the Dead Sea Scrolls book of Enoch? Or how about the 40+ names in the Book of Mormon that were not known in Joseph's day, but are now known to be authentic (the name Alma was unknown as a man's name in the Middle East until the Bar Kokhba letters were found <60 years ago)?

It is just too easy to spot and find a few things that do not jibe with science and insist that a prophet's role is to be the best scientist in the world. But that isn't it.

Interestingly, the cosmology in the book of Abraham does suggest an expansive universe that is organized in a hierarchical layered structure. And we now know that is true, since Edwin Hubble discovered that our universe consists of more than just the Milky Way galaxy, but is structured similarly to what Abraham suggest: planet/sun, solar system rotates around sun, solar systems rotate around a galactic center, galaxies cluster together around a super galactic cluster, which rotates around the expanding universe. Joseph's teaching that all things are made up of matter, including spirit, goes very well with science today. Joseph taught that matter cannot be made nor destroyed, which goes perfectly with science today. Matter cannot be destroyed, it can only be converted into other matter or energy. So, I suppose Joseph DID "guess right" on a few things.

[JohnnyRudick]

. . .What do you make of 1 Nephi 11:13 and Alma 7:10?. . .

[Enlil-An]

Originally posted by volgadon

I never made the claim that they didn't have to go through Archelaus's territory. The whole point is that despite his natural fears, Joseph remembered that God commanded this and he went through the land.

Nice try, but that's not what the scripture is saying. In every instance, when Joseph learns that Archelaus is the ruler of Judea, the scripture says he was afraid to "go there" (KJV "go thither"), not that he was afraid to "travel through" and when he received a warning from the angel, the scripture clearly indicates that he changed course in going to Galilee. Many english translations say, "he withdrew" into Galilee. The KJV says he "turned aside" (essentially the same as withdrew). The Messege translation of the Bible even says, "But then Joseph was directed in a dream to go to the hills of Galilee." Why would an angel need to direct Joseph to go to a place that he was going to already?

All the indications from Matthew 2:21-23 is that Joseph was originally going back to the land of Judea (presumably home to Bethlehem) and that he only went to Galilee instead because Archelaus was the new ruler of Judea and the angel's warning. You can (and will no doubt) disagree with this assessment but this is how it sounds to me and this is how most historians interpret it as well.

So what are the odds of none of the non-English translations I consulted saying warned, but rather commanded or instructed?

What difference does it make whether Joseph was warned or commanded? The point is that he wasn't originally going to Galilee. And if you are right that Joseph was "commanded" to go there, it is only more evidence that he wasn't originally heading there in the first place.

Alright then, ammend work to worked. Which one of my statements is wrong?

Your scenarios don't contradict either other at all. But then they don't have a back story do they. I'm sure you could invent a back story and word it in such a way that it could support your position, but Matthew and Luke cannot be harmonized with one another the way they are told and worded. They are different, contradictory stories. In Matthew's gospel, the holy family travels from Bethelehem to Egypt to Nazareth. In Lukes' they travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem back to Nazareth and they journey under completely different circumstances than those laid out in Matthew. The birth stories of the two gospels can't be reconciled.

Why do you assume that my source is online?

Why must I repeat myself two and three times because you seem to skim over everything I write and only pick out portions of it to nit-pick? I gave you two options, valgadon. Either post a link to the source online or type the quote into your post. Until you do, I'm not going on anymore of your scavanger hunts just to find out what I know already - that you are wrong.

Which is part of why I didn't provide them.

If you can't provide them, then there's no point telling us you have them to begin with because you can't use them to back you up.

As I said before, your loss. If you want to make sweeping pronouncements on the veracity of the Gospels and how that impacts our LDS faith WITHOUT immersing yourself in all aspects of the topic, then that is your problem.

You're the one making sweeping announcements about the Gospels. I'm just reading them as they stand and because they don't support what you want to believe you resort to all kinds of ludicrous tactics for refuting them from challenging the accuracy of their translations to stretching the text to mean something it doesn't and even refusing to take the passages at face value trying instead to invent some alternate meaning for them. "Oh, well it was customary for the Greeks to tell histories that contradict eachother. It's part of there culture." "Well, you see, when Jews claim they don't know something, they're only pretending to be ignorant toward an idea they find repulsive." What nonsense! Can you provide any real evidence for these absurd claims or not?

I would ask you how does the author know that they had nothing to do with a messiah.

Because she read them in the context in which they were written just like I did. Something Matthew DID NOT do.

First of all, my point was that if Nephi says she was a virgin, why do you have such a hard time believing Matthew's interpretation?

You are obviously having a hard time understanding what I've typed. You need to slow down and read my posts more carefully so I don't have to keep repeating myself. Let me say it again:

I don't have a problem with Matthew saying that Jesus was born of a virgin. I have a problem with Matthew saying that Isaiah prophecied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Nephi never claims that Isaiah prophecies of the virgin birth. Nephi makes his own prophecy of the virgin birth. My problem with Matthew isn't that he says Mary was a virgin. My problem is his interpretation that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of Jesus' birth. Got it now?

The world aalmah does not exclude virginity.

"The original Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14 reads as follows (translated):

"Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman [ha-almah] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu-el".[1]

Jewish scholars reason that [ha-almah] ("young woman") does not refer to a virgin and that had the Tanakh intended to refer to such, the specific Hebrew word for virgin [bethulah] would have been used. This view is often disputed by Christians (see below), and has been a point of contention between Jews and Christians since the formation of the modern Church. Jerome, in 383 CE, wrote in "Adversus Helvidium" that Helvidius misunderstood just this same point of confusion between the Greek and the Hebrew."

Isaiah 7:14 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secondly, read 2 Nephi 11. And yes, I do mean the whole chapter.

There is absolutely NOTHING in that chapter that supports your claim that Nephi believed Isaiah prophecied of the virgin birth of Jesus. Another wild goose chase.

Thirdly, f I can find but three latter-day prophets and apostles who support Matthew's interpretation, will that satisfy you?

No, it wouldn't. Sorry.

What do you make of 1 Nephi 11:13 and Alma 7:10?

Once again, neither of those verses support Matthew's claim that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy about Jesus or his virgin mother.

Some said. If there were no other traditions, then why would there be a division, it could be settled by simple appeal to the scriptures.

And you accused me of needing everything explained? There was a division because many Jews thought he was the Messiah based on all the miracles he was performing (not from some non-existant tradition that the Messiah would come from Nazareth) but the other Jews refused to believe he was the Messiah because he wasn't from Bethlehem as Micah prophecied.

Spare me the sarcasm. That is not a war you want to start.

All you need to do is track down the source. It isn't diffcult at all to do.

No. No more wild goose chases. I read 2 Nephi 11 and the other scriptures you cited because you couldn't be bothered to cut and paste them into your post. Now it's your turn to show a gesture of good faith. If you want me to read that part of Josephus that you maintain supports your point of view, post it in the thread for all of us to read. I'm not doing anymore work to search out your sources when all of them so far have been nothing but dead ends.

If you can't do this, we might need to just agree to disagree and spare ourselves any further haggling.

Edited July 2, 2009 by Enlil-An

[volgadon]

Nice try, but that's not what the scripture is saying. In every instance, when Joseph learns that Archelaus is the ruler of Judea, the scripture says he was afraid to "go there" (KJV "go thither"), not that he was afraid to "travel through" and when he received a warning from the angel, the scripture clearly indicates that he changed course in going to Galilee. Many english translations say, "he withdrew" into Galilee. The KJV says he "turned aside" (essentially the same as withdrew). The Messege translation of the Bible even says, "But then Joseph was directed in a dream to go to the hills of Galilee." Why would an angel need to direct Joseph to go to a place that he was going to already?

And the Hebrew, Aramaic, Slavonic and Russian I consulted say went to. And where the KJV has thither, those languages I mentioned have in.

The Message is a very mediocre work.

All the indications from Matthew 2:21-23 is that Joseph was originally going back to the land of Judea (presumably home to Bethlehem) and that he only went to Galilee instead because Archelaus was the new ruler of Judea and the angel's warning. You can (and will no doubt) disagree with this assessment but this is how it sounds to me and this is how most historians interpret it as well.

The indications of those English translations. Read some publications (any historical ones) where academics are reviewed by their peers and you will see why I don't much hold with the most historians bit.

What difference does it make whether Joseph was warned or commanded? The point is that he wasn't originally going to Galilee. And if you are right that Joseph was "commanded" to go there, it is only more evidence that he wasn't originally heading there in the first place.

The difference, as I've already laid out, is that there seems to have been only the one dream, the first one.

Your scenarios don't contradict either other at all. But then they don't have a back story do they. I'm sure you could invent a back story and word it in such a way that it could support your position, but Matthew and Luke cannot be harmonized with one another the way they are told and worded. They are different, contradictory stories. In Matthew's gospel, the holy family travels from Bethelehem to Egypt to Nazareth. In Lukes' they travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem back to Nazareth and they journey under completely different circumstances than those laid out in Matthew. The birth stories of the two gospels can't be reconciled.

There are times when I think you almost get it.

Why must I repeat myself two and three times because you seem to skim over everything I write and only pick out portions of it to nit-pick? I gave you two options, valgadon. Either post a link to the source online or type the quote into your post. Until you do, I'm not going on anymore of your scavanger hunts just to find out what I know already - that you are wrong.

So is it your final opinion that I am wrong about there being a tradition of the Messiah in the Galilee, specifically at Arbel?

You're the one making sweeping announcements about the Gospels. I'm just reading them as they stand and because they don't support what you want to believe you resort to all kinds of ludicrous tactics for refuting them from challenging the accuracy of their translations to stretching the text to mean something it doesn't and even refusing to take the passages at face value trying instead to invent some alternate meaning for them. "Oh, well it was customary for the Greeks to tell histories that contradict eachother. It's part of there culture." "Well, you see, when Jews claim they don't know something, they're only pretending to be ignorant toward an idea they find repulsive." What nonsense! Can you provide any real evidence for these absurd claims or not?

Wy I tell you to study historiography is because what sources we use for the ancient world were not written as modern day histories are. It is an extremely ignorant position to assume that they were. If your only interest is in being able to crow that all of us poor simpletons are decieved, then you probably won't want to waste your time doing meaningful research. You want me to do everything for you, whereas I want you to go out and learn for yourself.

Because she read them in the context in which they were written just like I did. Something Matthew DID NOT do.

It still her opinion. And it is your opinion that Matthew didn't, because you disagree with him.

You are obviously having a hard time understanding what I've typed. You need to slow down and read my posts more carefully so I don't have to keep repeating myself. Let me say it again:

I don't have a problem with Matthew saying that Jesus was born of a virgin. I have a problem with Matthew saying that Isaiah prophecied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Nephi never claims that Isaiah prophecies of the virgin birth. Nephi makes his own prophecy of the virgin birth. My problem with Matthew isn't that he says Mary was a virgin. My problem is his interpretation that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of Jesus' birth. Got it now?

"The original Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14 reads as follows (translated):

"Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman [ha-almah] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu-el".[1]

Jewish scholars reason that [ha-almah] ("young woman") does not refer to a virgin and that had the Tanakh intended to refer to such, the specific Hebrew word for virgin [bethulah] would have been used. This view is often disputed by Christians (see below), and has been a point of contention between Jews and Christians since the formation of the modern Church. Jerome, in 383 CE, wrote in "Adversus Helvidium" that Helvidius misunderstood just this same point of confusion between the Greek and the Hebrew."

Isaiah 7:14 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word betulah could have been used. Would is a bit presumptious.

Almah does not preclude virginity, indeed, one could ask just how Nephi knew Mary was a virgin.

What is the significance of the name Immanuel?

You need to understand that the reason Israeli and Jewish scholars are so adamant about it not being a virgin is that this verse was one used quite frequently by the Catholics when Bible-bashing the Jews and forcing them to convert.

There is absolutely NOTHING in that chapter that supports your claim that Nephi believed Isaiah prophecied of the virgin birth of Jesus. Another wild goose chase.

Or, quite conceivably, you missed the point. What does that chapter tell us about Isaiah and his methods of prophecy? What chapters follow this one?

Why wouldn't it?

Once again, neither of those verses support Matthew's claim that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy about Jesus or his virgin mother.

Never said they did, but guess what they do support. Jesus being concieved in Nazareth, yet being born in Bethlehem.

And you accused me of needing everything explained? There was a division because many Jews thought he was the Messiah based on all the miracles he was performing (not from some non-existant tradition that the Messiah would come from Nazareth) but the other Jews refused to believe he was the Messiah because he wasn't from Bethlehem as Micah prophecied.

So a simple appeal to scripture showing that the Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, would have settled that.

No. No more wild goose chases. I read 2 Nephi 11 and the other scriptures you cited because you couldn't be bothered to cut and paste them into your post. Now it's your turn to show a gesture of good faith. If you want me to read that part of Josephus that you maintain supports your point of view, post it in the thread for all of us to read. I'm not doing anymore work to search out your sources when all of them so far have been nothing but dead ends.

You are very tiresome with those silly little accusations. I did not c&p the chapter because it is a bit large for a single post.

Why don't you show a goodwill gesture, that you really are open to discussion and learning, and read those very precise verses from Josephus.

If you can't do this, we might need to just agree to disagree and spare ourselves any further haggling.

Debating, not haggling. I suggest a dictionary to learn the difference. I could c&p the definition, because I know how fond you are of wild goose chases.

[JohnnyRudick]

I hesitate to say it but we are dealing with Korihor who os looking for a wayt to discredit the Scriptures and he is starting with the weakist link.

The Gospels.

We already have a caveat "as far as they are translated correctly" and so that is the easiest way to get in to start tearing down the record.

We have to have a better understanding the history of the record and that thee are now and were men who not only by accident, but by design

added to and taken away from the records but also many of those records did survive in reasonable condition and Erasmus and others were

able to secure them for our benefit therefore brought together the tool to set the stage for the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

But He is saying that the Author is dishonest and it got into the Scripture.

That is a sore that can spread over time to the rest of what God has caused to be written.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God,

and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for

instruction in righteousness:

We are going no where here but he is intent to show that you cannot trust the Scripture.

God we have seen with even the Pearl of Great Price and in places in the D&C that He will make the Scripture for us today in the way

He wants us to have them in spite of the way they may have been in the so-called "originals".

We have the Scriptures today in the way He wants us to have them today.

If we study and have faith in Him, we can make sense of them.

Bro. Rudick

[Enlil-An]

Originally posted by volgadon

And the Hebrew, Aramaic, Slavonic and Russian I consulted say went to. And where the KJV has thither, those languages I mentioned have in.

The text says in the overwelming majority of translations that Joseph was afraid to go to Judea (not travel through) and that only when he was warned in a dream did he travel to Galilee. It's obvious to mea that he was originally going back to Judea and only went to Galilee to flee from Archelaus. I have no other arguements I can bring to the table than those I already have. If you don't want to interpret the scripture that way, that's fine.

The indications of those English translations. Read some publications (any historical ones) where academics are reviewed by their peers and you will see why I don't much hold with the most historians bit.

I'm not doing any such thing, volgadon. The historians who accept Matthew and Luke's nativity story as independent contradictory accounts have already provided enough evidence to show me that the two stories cannot be harmonized.

The difference, as I've already laid out, is that there seems to have been only the one dream, the first one.

And what difference does this make on anything we've been talking about? Spell it out for me.

So is it your final opinion that I am wrong about there being a tradition of the Messiah in the Galilee, specifically at Arbel?

You are wrong if you are asserting that there are traditions of the Messiah coming from Galilee that go back to the time before Christ. I have no doubt that later traditions of Jesus invovling Mt Arbel have developed.

Wy I tell you to study historiography is because what sources we use for the ancient world were not written as modern day histories are. It is an extremely ignorant position to assume that they were. If your only interest is in being able to crow that all of us poor simpletons are decieved, then you probably won't want to waste your time doing meaningful research. You want me to do everything for you, whereas I want you to go out and learn for yourself.

Hogwash! You haven't given me any thing to research that has any meaningful support for your point of view and now you're trying to weasle out of posting quotes from your sources, we must assume, because you don't want to us to see how weak they are as a defense for your arguements.

I read biblical historiography on my own and I can assure you, nothing I have read (and doubtful will ever read) has lead me to the wild conclusions you're making about the Jews in John's gospel and unless you provide quotes or a link to a precise statements from credible sources (quote Josephus if you want), there's no reason to think that you know what you're talking about and no reason for me to exert myself any further.

It still her opinion. And it is your opinion that Matthew didn't, because you disagree with him.

I guess all of our beliefs are based on our opinion, aren't they? Her opinion is shared by many other historians (who aren't paid evangelists) who have also written scholarly works on this subject. It's the only real logical opinion that there is...in my opinion.

The word betulah could have been used. Would is a bit presumptious.

Almah does not preclude virginity, indeed, one could ask just how Nephi knew Mary was a virgin.

Nephi knew Mary was a virgin because he had his own vision concerning her. Nothing in anything Nephi writes suggests that he got this idea from Isaiah.

"Almah" may not preclude virginity (just like the english phrase young woman deosn't) but the problem is that it doesn't insinuate virginity and there's no reason to assume that it would. It would be more presuptiuous to assume that Isaiah used such a vague word for virgin when there was a more precise word available. Don't you think that if Isaiah wanted his readers to know she was a virgin, he would have said "virgin" and not "young woman"? Afterall, a many babies do you think were born of a virgin in Isaiah's world?

What is the significance of the name Immanuel?

It's a Hebrew name like mine, Matthew which means "gift of God". Many Hebrew names incorporate divine status in their meanings. Immanual (which is not the Hebrew name for Jesus) is a very common Israelite name and when reading Isaiah 7:14 in context with the rest of the chapter and the correct Hebrew wording, it's obvious that it isn't referring to Jesus.

The name Samson means sun child and his birth was also predicted in scripture. Does that mean we should believe that his mortal father was not his real father and that he was begotton by the sun?

You need to understand that the reason Israeli and Jewish scholars are so adamant about it not being a virgin is that this verse was one used quite frequently by the Catholics when Bible-bashing the Jews and forcing them to convert.

There is no evidence that Jews ever interpreted Isaiah 7:14 that way even before Christ was born. And the fact that the original Hebrew doesn't use the word virgin, is solid evidence that Matthew is the one using that verse for polemical reasons.

Or, quite conceivably, you missed the point. What does that chapter tell us about Isaiah and his methods of prophecy? What chapters follow this one?

Why don't you just explain the point, Sherlock, and post whatever quotes from that chapter (and the following ones if necessary) to demonstrate it exactly what your point (which you still haven't made clear) is and how Isaiah and Nephi support it?

Why wouldn't it?

Because I've lost my faith in the abilities of general authorities to always correctly interpret the Bible.

Never said they did, but guess what they do support. Jesus being concieved in Nazareth, yet being born in Bethlehem.

How on earth do 1 Nephi 11:13 and Alma 7:10 support that? Niether Nazareth nor Bethlehem are even mentioned in those scriptures.

So a simple appeal to scripture showing that the Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, would have settled that.

There were many Jews who appealed to scripture but others still believed in him because of the miracles. It says this quite clearly in John chapter 7.

I did not c&p the chapter because it is a bit large for a single post.

Why don't you show a goodwill gesture, that you really are open to discussion and learning, and read those very precise verses from Josephus.

If the verses you want me to find are very precise, why don't you give me the precise number for those verses. I'm not scouring four whole chapters of Josephus just to find...what ever it is you want me to find.

Debating, not haggling. I suggest a dictionary to learn the difference.

I know the difference and you definately like to haggle. But nevermind...

[JohnnyRudick]

So is this just over the verse in Isaiah?

Or are you saying that Matthew, Luke and John are dishonest?

"Cause Joseph might well have been going to go through Bethlehem

but decided to go home a different way.

And I do not see the problem with the wording as this type of wording is

found in many places I have read.

Weather they returned to Nazareth or journeyed to Nazareth,

they still ended up in Nazareth.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with some about there being two Bethlehems.

One in Judea and one in Galilee just outside of Nazareth.

Are you heading in that direction?

Just wonderin'

Bro. Rudick

[Enlil-An]

Originally posted by rameumpton

Now, we tend to accept the stories, regardless of whether they are factual, because we simply do not know which one is/isn't factual, plus the stories teach great things to us.

That's not what the 8th Article of Faith says. It says we believe the Bible to be the word of God. Do you really believe it's been that badly translated that whole entire stories are false? I don't think that's the Church's position and I've never heard a Sunday school teacher or general authority put the Bible into the prespective that you just did.

Did Joseph Smith ever say he was infallible? Or did he say that a prophet is only a prophet when speaking by the Holy Ghost?

He said there was no error in the things he had taught. Apparently that was wrong.

He did not spend time focusing on whether the stories were historically factual. He focused on doctrine. And what IF Joseph embellished? We clearly have embellishment in the Bible from the ancient prophets (or the scribes). Do we really need to have infallible prophets to have the true Church?

It isn't just the stories in the Bible that have problems. The doctrines do as well. And if a prophet can be so fallible as to lie and give wrong information, what is the benefit of following a prophet over any other man?

What about them? Are you attempting to set up a straw man? Joseph Smith got some things wrong, so he must be a false prophet, because logic suggests that prophets must be perfect in science, math, English literature, quantum theory, and baking French pastries? Is that the kind of straw man you are getting at?

No, I'm saying that if Joseph Smith was wrong in his interpretation of scripture and prophecy, there might be something more complex about being a prophet that what the Church has traditionally taught. Don't you believe that the Church should teach the truth about this complexity?

We do not claim the PoGP to be perfect.

No, we claim that it's true. And obviously there are parts of it that are not true.

Why not spend some time on the things Joseph got right?

I do when I'm talking to non-members on other threads.

[Enlil-An]

Originally posted by JohnnyRudick

Or are you saying that Matthew, Luke and John are dishonest?

Luke possibly. Matthew definately. John doesn't say anything about the virgin birth or Jesus being born at Bethlehem. I don't think he believes it.

Weather they returned to Nazareth or journeyed to Nazareth,

they still ended up in Nazareth.

There's no disputing that Jesus was from Nazareth. The point is how he got there. Matthew and Luke are painting the target around the arrow with their birth narratives of Jesus because they're trying to demonstrate how Jesus was from Nazareth, but really born at Bethlehem where the prophecy of Micah says the Messiah is supposed to come from and they both come up with different stories of how Jesus got from A to B.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with some about there being two Bethlehems.

One in Judea and one in Galilee just outside of Nazareth.

Are you heading in that direction?

No, the direction I'm leaning in is that Jesus was probably really born in Nazareth and that all oral traditions of him being born at Bethlehem were invented to conform to prophecy.

[JohnnyRudick]

No, the direction I'm leaning in is that Jesus was probably really born in Nazareth and that all oral traditions of him being born at Bethlehem were invented to conform to prophecy.

So Micah, The City of David, the Bread from Heaven and all was just made up stuff?

Bro. Rudick

[Enlil-An]

So Micah, The City of David, the Bread from Heaven and all was just made up stuff?

Very possibly. It's also possible that Jesus was born at Bethlehem. He just didn't get there the way Matthew and Luke said he did.

[rameumptom]

En-Lil,

Your premise that the Gospels were written by the "original prophets" is wrong. You are building up a case based upon a wrong premise. We do not have the "originals" of any scripture, except for the D&C.

And AoF DOES state, "insofar as it (the Bible) is translated correctly." There are no other qualifiers, as the Lord did not give them to us. We learn not only through prophets, but other sources as well (such as science). And science is showing us things that Joseph did not know.

I've mentioned that the Lord gives to all people the amount of truth they are ready for (Alma 29:8), and that would include the LDS. Joseph never claimed to be perfect in his revelations. In fact, he had no problem with going back and improving upon them or correcting them later. Several D&C sections today were actually compiled together from more than one revelation, or were later corrected with new information.

So, let's take your straw man and give him a rest. You can discuss issues, but let's not make liars out of "prophets" who may not have even written the books. And if a few symbolic fables got into the scriptures, so what? Are you one that insists on a God-breathed book? If so, then the LDS Church is not for you, because the Lord has given us living prophets and the Holy Spirit to guide us into understanding what is truth. But we still learn line upon line, precept upon precept. The perfection comes in the next life.