Discrepancies In the Nativity Story

[JohnnyRudick]

This one is easy. Bethlehem IS part of the land of Jerusalem. When King Solomon divided his kingdom, Jerusalem was the "administrative center" for Bethlehem. According to the Bible, the cities controlled the nearby lands. Thus we read of "the king of Ai, and his people, and his city, and his land" (Joshua 8:1) and of the city of Hebron with its suburbs, fields, and villages (1 Chronicles 6:55–56). Tappuah is both a land and a city (Joshua 17:8, and Joshua 16:8–9.) Also, Jeremiah prophesyied that Jerusalem would become "a land not inhabited" (Jeremiah 6:8; compare 15:5–7).

Here's the modern borders of Jerusalem - please note that Bethlehem is part of it. Similar concept was going on 2 millenia ago.

2 Kings 14:20 And they brought him on horses: and he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David.

Luke 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem...

Maybe you just don't know where to look...

LM

I was hoping someone would bring this up.

I thank you

You guys save me a lot of writing;)

I have learned not to just jump in.

If I lay back, one of ya will get it in:p

Luv y'all:)

Bro. Rudick

[JohnnyRudick]

I hope you dont overdo this problem Enlil-An. The answer may be simplier than you think. Joseph was a carpenter... maybe he got a good work possibility while there? Carpenters often had to move around a lot. Did he have his whole family with or did he leave them in ... Nazareth... when travelling around.

To mix you up even more... You ever read the Gospel of James ... Jesus brother? THERE is some very interesting possibilities. But it all is just that, possibilities, untill we are told/shown the truth.

Why JS did not tell us the truth? What town Jesus was born has little to do with our salvation. Also I think he had so much other things to tell... maybe he did get to know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but did not react as that is the common belief? Why would he have reacted to something that was obvious from before? Then again maybe God did not correct the "mistake " if there was any, as it really has nothig to do with our salvation! We need faith. If everything is given us on a plate we do not need faith!

There really are many more important facts that the scolars should search. Bible is not either proven by Arceologists... possibility to that it is telling the truth does excist, we learn the truth of it by faith, just like the BoM.

As it comes to scolars LDS scolars use other biblical scolars all the time as many dont even think LDS scolars can be objective. So why search something they are doing? Even if a scolar thinks he has found a truth... it may be wrong after a few years or decades... so we need to be careful with what we believe. We need to ask God.

Thanks again Maya..

There is no mistake in the King James Translaton of this account.

Some people are just to picky:D

Bro. Rudick

[JohnnyRudick]

I dunno. Maybe he just had a brain freeze. Maybe his sources were faulty. Maybe he figured it was none of our business. Maybe because he did want to downplay Jesus' Nazarene background.

Like many of the other terms to which you impute only one particular meaning--"oikia" can be an actual residence, but it can also be a generic term for any place of abode.

Assumptions. It's just as plausible that the text is merely introducing a new (to the reader) and relatively obscure location into the story.

Hardly the "smoking gun" you originally made it out to be.

Another assumption, and an incorrect one. In truth, all we can purport to "know" is that at the time Herod gave the order he believed Jesus had been born at some indeterminate date within the previous two years. We know nothing further of the time frame. We don't know whether the star came before or after Jesus' birth, or how close the date of its appearance was to the date of the event it announced. We don't know how much time passed between the star's first appearance and the time the wise men got to Herod; we don't know how long it took them to find Jesus after they saw Herod, and we don't know how long it took Herod to figure out that the wise men weren't coming back.

Naturally. According to Luke's account, that was where they were from.

Another unwarranted inference from an ambiguous passage in Matthew.

If I'm writing to my descendants about events that will take place in Tijuana, I'm not going to explain it as being in the "Land of San Diego"--even if I'm from San Diego, and my descendants could never possibly know the difference.

Joseph was afraid of living under Archelaus' reign, I grant you. But the scripture does not say why. Anything further is speculation.

His memory is more than likely garbled, yes. I have no problem with Luke's getting some of the dates and details wrong. Heck, he may even be referring to the wrong census, or some other government action that wasn't technically a "census" at all. There was no internet; no school textbooks; no newspaper morgue to verify his memory (or the oral histories) against.

That doesn't mean he's lying about the essentials: that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth but were compelled to travel to Bethlehem, where Jesus was born.

Another unwarranted inference.

I'm not comparing it to the gospel narratives; I'm comparing it to how you seem to treat them. You're taking two accounts of the same fundamental event, pointing out some differences, and using the existence of the differences to justify the assertion that even where the accounts agree they are unreliable.

Which brings to mind another question: If Jesus was not born at Bethlehem, where does that leave Micah's prophecy?

We can stop right there. Neither Matthew nor Luke bear a remote similarity to "police statements". A better analogy is if my wife, explaining to her boss later that day why she was late for work, went into painstaking detail about our actions both before and after the crash; while I (who am a lousy judge of distance) later told a friend in passing that the impact threw us nearly a hundred feet when in truth we had been thrown fifty feet.

When you take out all the assumptions, innuendo, and inferences drawn from textual ambiguities, all you've really got is the following:

a) Matthew does not tell us where Joseph and Mary lived before Jesus' birth, whereas Luke does.

b) Matthew does not explain why Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem, whereas Luke does.

c) Luke botched the date of Jesus' birth and, very probably, at least some of the particulars of the situation that got Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem in the first place.

d) Luke does not mention the flight into Egypt, whereas Matthew does.

There's a lack of overlap, to be sure; and each account individually has some flaws. But I see no prima facie evidence of actual conflict between the two accounts.

Thanks for the help.

I think this is just another person who is going to some college taking a bible course where the professor is trashing the Bible and the student is eating it up.

Bro. Rudick

[JohnnyRudick]

Look, guys. Everyone can believe what they want. I'm not here to convert you to something you don't want to accept. A person can explain away anything uncomfortable if they completely close their mind to the reality of what they're looking at. . .

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

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

Way to picky.

I have no problem with the view given (pre-flood conditions) of the cosmology given in Genesis or the PofGP.

But the Earth is round and has always been round:p

If God flooded the universe with water after His original creation and then divided the water from the water where He originally placed our solar system along with a few others in His original Creation (space between Gen 1:1 and 1:2) what is the difference?

He has His reasons.

If the surface is frozen and is as a "Sea of Glass" and

If the Universe is shaped like a giant pyramid and Kolob is at the apex He has His reasons for that also.

Job 38:30 The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of

the deep is frozen.

Job 38:31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or

loose the bands of Orion?

Revelation 4:6 And before the throne there was a sea of glass

like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round

about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and

behind.

Revelation 15:2 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled

with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast,

and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his

name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.

Just a Thought;)

Bro. Rudick

Edited May 11, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
Spelling:-( Format

[Snow]

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

Ben Raines

Thank you Ben - appreciate hearing from you.

[Enlil-An]

If you want to blame the Church for your lack of education - then I'd say you are trying to blame someone else for your own failings.

Oh, right. I should have known right off the bat that LDS scholars were out to lunch. Afterall, everyone in the Church knows that. All this time I thought I could learn about the Bible from going to Church, reading the Ensign, and shopping at Desert Book. What was I thinking?

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

If so then you're straying from what's in your teacher's manual, aren't you? If you and your folks have known about "this stuff" for years and years, it wasn't from studying LDS material or growing up in Mormon communities. You learned these things from outside sources. And then you chided me for not doubting everything the Church brought me up to believe? Why don't you look at some of the posts on this thread? Apparently the "slow crowd" I've been running with all these years has been the bulk of the members of the Church? Is that what you're saying?

LDS scholars are certainly aware of this stuff as are historical scholars in general but until recently, there hasn't been any popular book directed toward the lay public on the matter.

I'm afraid this isn't true at all. Many LDS scholars for at least the last 100 years have created works that were specifically aimed at the lay public at least since the early 20th century and continue to steadily krank out more. The problem is that if they really know about "this stuff" they are not informing the lay public of it.

I have a book here: Verse by Verse: The Four Gospels written by two BYU scholars, D. Kelly Ogden and Andrew C. Skinner. After promoting the old, debunked view of the two contradictary geneologies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke (that one geneology is of Joseph and the other of Mary), the book goes into the details of the birth narratives (but not too closely, of course) trying its hardest to reconcile the different accounts and get around the historical inaccuracies by using outdated argements and dubious sources (not to mention skipping over conflicting passages). This book was published in 2006. If LDS scholars really do know about "this stuff", they're going to great lengths to cover it up and keep the lay public from hearing it.

Off the top of my head I can recommend 1. From Jesus to Christianity: How Four Generations of Visionaries & Storytellers Created the New Testament and Christian Faith: L. Michael White; 2. Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) Bart D. Ehrman 3. The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church's Conservative Icon, Marcus J. Borg, John Dominic Crossan.

That's wonderful, Snow, not one single LDS scholar among them. You don't think I have access to Amazon.com like everyone else? When did you last read Ehrman's Jesus Interupted by the way?

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

Sounds fair. Which specific "gospel truths necessary for our salvation" are you referring to exactly that you see remaining intact from the Old Testament on through to the New?

I am probably much more familiar with much of it than you are. YOU may have a problem with it. I don't lose any sleep nor do I get a aflutter and tweaky when someone like you tries to sound an alarm.

Obviously you are getting fluttered because your smug tone and condescending remarks are out of character for someone whose faith has gone through "the wringer" and come out victorious with a renewed testimony and the peace of reconciliation. You sound more like someone who has been confronted with these things before, never found satisfactory answers for them, dismissed and pushed them aside when it became too overwelming, and allowed time and a fading memory to heal the wounds. When someone like me comes along to open them back up again, your knee-jerk reaction is to attack and belittle the messenger in the hopes that he/she won't see through your little game and put you through "the wringer" all over again. You can prove me wrong, of course, by offering helpful, intellectual insights that you have discovered to help you reconcile modern historical research with your traditional faith. This is what your fellow saint is asking of you. I'm not really interested in playing immature games.

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

The versus I'm referring to are the ones I've specifically quoted from Genesis 1:6-8 which have been reproduced almost verbatim in Abraham 4:6-8 and Moses 2:6-8. And, no, I don't think that Joseph Smith thought the earth was flat and the sky was a round dome. But, like most people who read the creation story in Genesis, I think Joseph Smith didn't understand what he was reading (there were no Ancient Near Eastern sources in translation available to him in his day to clarify these passages), and (one possible explaination) just lifted those verses straight out of the Old Testament and into the Pearl of Great Price having no idea what those texts truly signified. But, thanks to modern archeology and scholarly research, the beliefs and myths of the Ancient Near East are available to us today and anyone familiar with them would recognize straight away in the Bible's account the belief that was universal to all peoples of that time in the Near East - that the earth was a flat disc encased in a solid dome surrounded by water above and below and that if a person travelled far enough they would reach the edge of the world where heaven and earth touched eachother as it is described in Nehemiah 1:9 "But if ye turn unto me, and keep my commandments, and do them; though there were of you cast out unto the uttermost part of the heaven, yet will I gather them from thence, and will bring them unto the place that I have chosen to set my name there." And Mark 13:27 "And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven."

[Enlil-An]

If God flooded the universe with water after His original creation and then divided the water from the water where He originally placed our solar system along with a few others in His original Creation (space between Gen 1:1 and 1:2) what is the difference?

That's a creative interpretation, brother Rudick, but unfortunately it's not very likely. There are multiple examples in the Bible of the scriptures describing the flat earth and vaulted sky of the Ancient Near Eastern mythological cosmology. After studying Sumerian and Babylonian (as well as Egyptian) literature, a person can recognize the language immediately - as people living in those times would also have done.

Edited to add: Besides, how would verses 9 and 10 fit in with that definition? "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas".

Edited May 11, 2009 by Enlil-An

[JohnnyRudick]

That's a creative interpretation, brother Rudick, but unfortunately it's not very likely. There are multiple examples in the Bible of the scriptures describing the flat earth and vaulted sky of the Ancient Near Eastern mythological cosmology. After studying Sumerian and Babylonian (as well as Egyptian) literature, a person can recognize the language immediately - as people living in those times would also have done.

Edited to add: Besides, how would verses 9 and 10 fit in with that definition? "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas".

8 is the number of New Beginnings and here we have a shift of attention from the Heavens to the Earth.

The water on the Earth are gathered together and are called seas. . .

Bro. Rudick

[Traveler]

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?

The problem here is that the context of time and place is not understood very well. All the gospels were written some time after the death of Jesus. It is possible that the books were written 50 to 80 years after the actual events of his birth. If there was perfect agreement (as implied there should be) it would do more to indicate that the story was “fixed” and not at all accurate within the time that the text of each gospel were first made.

Another problem is historical ignorance. There was no understanding of zero at the time of Christ’s birth. A child was considered 1 year old when they were born and an additional year old at the New Year. A child that was born 3 days before a new year would be 2 years old before they were even a week by our accounting. We see this same math applied when Jesus died and was said to be in the tomb for 3 days when he really was not there for even a full 1 and ½ days by our accounting.

Mixing and matching ancient text with modern constraints is like trying to make sense of complex numbers using real number theory. All that can said of such annalists is that it is invalid.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Look, guys. Everyone can believe what they want. I'm not here to convert you to something you don't want to accept. A person can explain away anything uncomfortable if they completely close their mind to the reality of what they're looking at.

.......

The truth is that what Genesis is describing is the creation of the universe as the people of the Ancient Near East understood it. They believed that the earth was flat, that the sky was a round dome, and that the whole of everything was surrounded by water ("the abyss").

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

Again there are problems with mixing and matching different understanding of things using modern techniques. The concept of creation from a watery abyss comes from the ancient Egyptians 4000 years BC. The ancient concept becomes infinitely more palatable with the application of ancient mathematics. These ancient scientists did not believe the world to be flat and such non-sense is flawed from Medieval (Dark Ages) thinking when mixed with modern interpretations of Greek philosophy based on Medieval thinking.

The truth is that any civilization that could navigate the oceans in both the northern and southern hemispheres had to have known the world was round. We know from history that the ancient Egyptians established trade with India and used ships that sailed around the tip of Africa. The ancient Egyptian concepts of solar calendars and an absolute center North/South line indicates that they understood the earth is round much better than most high school students do today. Many with college degrees in the arts are not smart enough to see the coloration.

Please – even the Greeks and Romans (that did nothing more than copy the Egyptians) knew the earth was round. It was the silly religionist of the dark ages that came up with the flat earth nonsense.

The Traveler

[Enlil-An]

8 is the number of New Beginnings and here we have a shift of attention from the Heavens to the Earth.

Sorry, not quite. Verse 9 may be a new day but the heaven and the waters mentioned represent the same heaven and waters talked about the day before. There is nothing to suggest a shift to a different heaven and body of water.

There was no understanding of zero at the time of Christ’s birth. A child was considered 1 year old when they were born and an additional year old at the New Year.

Yes, too true. But a year is still a lot longer than 40 days and remember that Luke has the divine family return immediately to Nazareth after this period. There is no flight into Egypt. King Herod doesn't enter the picture in Luke at all.

The concept of creation from a watery abyss comes from the ancient Egyptians 4000 years BC.

The Egyptians beleived that the sun was the eye of Horus who died at the end of each day in the West, travelled under the earth to fight the demons of the underworld and then come out the other side and rise in the east signifying his victory at the dawn of each day. The Greeks were the first people to develop the idea that the earth was round in the late first millennium B.C. The universe that Genesis is describing is the flat earth with vaulted sky from ancient Mesopotamia. All Ancient Near Eastern cultures believed in a flat earth and vaulted sky created from the primordial sea (including Egypt) and scholars universally accept the idea that this belief came from the Sumerians out of Mesopotamia. The Caananites were heavily influenced by Mesopotamian culture and this influence is seen in many Bible stories.

Please – even the Greeks and Romans (that did nothing more than copy the Egyptians) knew the earth was round. It was the silly religionist of the dark ages that came up with the flat earth nonsense.

This is one of the most common misconceptions of history. In reality, no educated person in Europe believed the earth was flat since at least the 5th century A.D. The false idea that people in the Middle Ages believed the earth was flat was invented and popularized by Washington Erving in his 19th century book, The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. The truth was, only the most ignorant of the masses didn't believe the earth was round. The argument in Columbus' day was not about whether it was round or flat, but whether it was small or big. Columbus believed the earth was actually smaller than it was and thought Eastern India was about where Eastern America is. Those who wouldn't support him were people who believed the earth was much bigger and that Columbus would never make it that far across the ocean.

I don't know much about Egyptian history yet but I'm almost certain the idea of a round earth developed in Greece at about 300 B.C. Either way, it's obvious by numerous passages in the Bible that the Hebrews did not believe the earth was round.

[JohnnyRudick]

Sorry, not quite. Verse 9 may be a new day but the heaven and the waters mentioned represent the same heaven and waters talked about the day before. There is nothing to suggest a shift to a different heaven and body of water.

Makes as much sense as your stuff:D

You must be the Scripture correcting professor teaching the kid I was referring to the other day;)

Bro. Rudick

Edited May 12, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
After thought;)

[Snow]

Oh, right. I should have known right off the bat that LDS scholars were out to lunch. Afterall, everyone in the Church knows that. All this time I thought I could learn about the Bible from going to Church, reading the Ensign, and shopping at Desert Book. What was I thinking?

We obviously come from 2 different perspectives... you are upset that someone hasn't educated you, and I, if I want to know something, go out and research it.

If so then you're straying from what's in your teacher's manual, aren't you?

Yeah - and?

If you and your folks have known about "this stuff" for years and years, it wasn't from studying LDS material or growing up in Mormon communities.

Wrong - I grew up in Salt Lake and run in LDS circles. I belong to a well-known local LDS study group where is stuff is old news. I've been posting about the things you are so shocked about 7 years ago right here in an LDS online community.

You learned these things from outside sources.

Outside sources? You mean like us vs them? What a wonderfully parochial way of looking at the world.

I learned about these things from studying the works of those that are interested in such things, where ever they come from.

And then you chided me for not doubting everything the Church brought me up to believe? Why don't you look at some of the posts on this thread? Apparently the "slow crowd" I've been running with all these years has been the bulk of the members of the Church? Is that what you're saying?

I'm saying that those that are healthy and want to learn something take responsibility for their own education and those that are unhealty expect others to do their work for them and then act bent when they aren't as knowledgeable as healthy inquirers.

I'm afraid this isn't true at all. Many LDS scholars for at least the last 100 years have created works that were specifically aimed at the lay public at least since the early 20th century and continue to steadily krank out more. The problem is that if they really know about "this stuff" they are not informing the lay public of it.

If you think that my post is untrue - then prove I am wrong. I said that until recently there haven't been lay books on the matter (the matter of inconsistencies and errors in the Bible or NT). If I am wrong, please tell me which books you are referring to.

I was not referring to LDS books - The Church seems not at all interested in promulgating higher and lower criticism.... and why should they be? How would that help further the Church's mission?

I have a book here: Verse by Verse: The Four Gospels written by two BYU scholars, D. Kelly Ogden and Andrew C. Skinner. After promoting the old, debunked view of the two contradictary geneologies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke (that one geneology is of Joseph and the other of Mary), the book goes into the details of the birth narratives (but not too closely, of course) trying its hardest to reconcile the different accounts and get around the historical inaccuracies by using outdated argements and dubious sources (not to mention skipping over conflicting passages). This book was published in 2006. If LDS scholars really do know about "this stuff", they're going to great lengths to cover it up and keep the lay public from hearing it.

I'd love to see you debate Ogden and especially Skinner on the matter. They'd eat you for lunch - the point being that there are varying opinions on the matter and your's is only one - and not necessarily the absolutely correct one.

That's wonderful, Snow, not one single LDS scholar among them. You don't think I have access to Amazon.com like everyone else? When did you last read Ehrman's Jesus Interupted by the way?

I wasn't talking about Amazon - I was talking about books sitting on my desk that I've recently read and found worth reading. I've read all three within the past 6 months if you want to know.

Sounds fair. Which specific "gospel truths necessary for our salvation" are you referring to exactly that you see remaining intact from the Old Testament on through to the New?

I'll need a more specific question to give an answer.

Obviously you are getting fluttered because your smug tone and condescending remarks are out of character for someone whose faith has gone through "the wringer" and come out victorious with a renewed testimony and the peace of reconciliation. You sound more like someone who has been confronted with these things before, never found satisfactory answers for them, dismissed and pushed them aside when it became too overwelming, and allowed time and a fading memory to heal the wounds. When someone like me comes along to open them back up again, your knee-jerk reaction is to attack and belittle the messenger in the hopes that he/she won't see through your little game and put you through "the wringer" all over again. You can prove me wrong, of course, by offering helpful, intellectual insights that you have discovered to help you reconcile modern historical research with your traditional faith. This is what your fellow saint is asking of you. I'm not really interested in playing immature games.

uh - um, whatever. I guess you think I'll be impressed that you will see right through my fragile veneer and into my weak and quivering soul... instead of thinking that you are just a rank amateur wordsmith trying to play the very same game you pretend to not be interested in. Buy a clue.

If you want whatever insights I have - for whatever they are worth, stick around. I post on them all the time.

The versus I'm referring to are the ones I've specifically quoted from Genesis 1:6-8 which have been reproduced almost verbatim in Abraham 4:6-8 and Moses 2:6-8. And, no, I don't think that Joseph Smith thought the earth was flat and the sky was a round dome. But, like most people who read the creation story in Genesis, I think Joseph Smith didn't understand what he was reading (there were no Ancient Near Eastern sources in translation available to him in his day to clarify these passages), and (one possible explaination) just lifted those verses straight out of the Old Testament and into the Pearl of Great Price having no idea what those texts truly signified. But, thanks to modern archeology and scholarly research, the beliefs and myths of the Ancient Near East are available to us today and anyone familiar with them would recognize straight away in the Bible's account the belief that was universal to all peoples of that time in the Near East - that the earth was a flat disc encased in a solid dome surrounded by water above and below and that if a person travelled far enough they would reach the edge of the world where heaven and earth touched eachother as it is described in Nehemiah 1:9 "But if ye turn unto me, and keep my commandments, and do them; though there were of you cast out unto the uttermost part of the heaven, yet will I gather them from thence, and will bring them unto the place that I have chosen to set my name there." And Mark 13:27 "And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven."

Correct me if I am wrong, but Joseph Smith wasn't supposed to be the author of Moses (or the BoA). The issue is whether or not he did a valid restoration, not whether he was depicting an accurate view of the the world/universe.

Try not being so angry - try taking responsibility for your own education.

I'd be interested to watch you over the next couple years - not that your drama is original - but the journey you have embarked on is always a good show. Some can't deal with it and bolt, and lose their faith - others (the ones with fortitude and humility and perseverance, imo) turn out to be mature, solid and much more interesting students (of such things) with a much healthier foundation for their faith... good luck.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Snow

[rameumptom]

EnLil,

Why are you so upset about the Church not teaching you certain things? Its responsibility is to teach the gospel, not about the flaws in the scriptures or in an individual's character. There are many places to find those things.

I joined 33 years ago when I was 16, and was always able to find information on a variety of issues about the Church. But it was my responsibility to do the searching, not anyone else's.

The Church also doesn't teach me about the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi library, how to read ancient Hebrew, or split an atom. That is not their duty. It is mine to find these things out. In fact the Lord commands us in the D&C to seek out learning from the best books, and to gain a knowledge of all things (D&C 88). Seems to me you are bristling, because the Church isn't just handing it to you on a silver platter. Oliver Cowdery once thought that way, and was told that it wasn't done that way, but that he needed to study things out in his own mind in seeking for the right answers (D&C 9).

Now, we have the Internet. Much of this stuff is available all over it. We can discuss things here, at the dozens of LDS blogs online, and at sites like fairlds.org. Why is there still complaint about the info not being available? I frankly cannot understand it, except that some people just like to complain that their steak isn't done to perfection.

[rameumptom]

Most LDS books on scripture, including Ogden and Skinner's are focused on teaching what the Bible states, not on high/low criticism. They are not interested in determining whether Luke or Matthew or both were wrong. They are just trying to explain the doctrine and how the author of the book understood things. That is the point.

We aren't seeking to determine which author was right/wrong, but to understand how they understood things.

Historians make mistakes, especially when there is little data to go by, or it is all word of mouth. Luke and Matthew were not historians writing history, but were preachers trying to convince others of the divinity of Christ. They used the data at hand, decades after the birth and even the death of Christ. Obviously, many stories arose about Jesus' birth after his death and resurrection. We can only speculate which ones are more accurate, and which ones are dead wrong. That isn't the point. The point is to share how these people viewed their Messiah, and seek to understand Him better through these stories.

The same holds true with all of the Bible and scriptures. They were written by imperfect people, often holding to certain political and religious views. I know that J and E were not going to agree on several points of their political history. In a scholarly discussion, that may be of value. But Gospel Doctrine is about learning the doctrines of the Church, and how the teachings in the gospel apply to those doctrines.

[Enlil-An]

I have no motivation to get into contentious arguments. I came on this board with very specific questions and concerns and it seems that many were (are) more interested in turning the whole thing into a competition then actually being helpful. I didn't come on here to see who was the most clever debater or who could eat who for lunch. These are what I call "games" and I'm not interested in them. I welcome and have no problem responding to challenges to the points I raise but personal attacks and sidetracking comments are techniques for lawyers and debate teams. They are not methods used by people who are trying to come to a common conclusion and be "edified together".

None of this was meant to be an attack on the Church or the gospel which I have a very strong testimony of.

Snow, forgive me if I sounded ungrateful at the recommendations you mentioned. I do have Jesus Interrupted (though my favorite of his is still probably Misquoting Jesus) and the other recommendations look good as well. But I'm more interested to find out if you knew of any LDS sources/scholars (this side of the millenium) that address these issues which you claim is "hardly breaking news" to the LDS community. Books from the historical critics I can find on my own.

I'll need a more specific question to give an answer.

I can't be more specific than that. You said you believed that the Bible was a book that shows that the Lord allows man to fumble along with what the Lord gives him but that He had a hand in it enough to make sure that the "gospel truths necessary for our salvation" remained in tact. So I'm asking you for an example. What specific gospels truths necessary for our salvation do you believe remained intact throughout the Old and New Testaments?

I don't understand the position many of you are taking that asking questions of others is somehow avoiding the responsibility of doing research. I have always considered discussion among people who are studying the same things as part of doing research.

I also don't understand your belief that members who go to LDS sources to do research and get insights on the Bible are being irresponsible. It's natural for members to be predisposed to trust LDS scholarship. Most members feel that LDS scholars are the best sources to learn from because they not only have access to what's in the professional, secular fields, but also have additional insights because they accept modern revelation. How are Church members supposed to know that LDS scholars are not being honest, completely upfront or thorough in their research and that the sources on the outside (it has nothing to do with looking at the world with an "us" or "them" perspective) contain mountains of material that demonstrate the inacurracy of claims by scholars like Ogden and Skinner?

Edited May 12, 2009 by Enlil-An

[Traveler]

Sorry, not quite. Verse 9 may be a new day but the heaven and the waters mentioned represent the same heaven and waters talked about the day before. There is nothing to suggest a shift to a different heaven and body of water.

Yes, too true. But a year is still a lot longer than 40 days and remember that Luke has the divine family return immediately to Nazareth after this period. There is no flight into Egypt. King Herod doesn't enter the picture in Luke at all.

The Egyptians beleived that the sun was the eye of Horus who died at the end of each day in the West, travelled under the earth to fight the demons of the underworld and then come out the other side and rise in the east signifying his victory at the dawn of each day. The Greeks were the first people to develop the idea that the earth was round in the late first millennium B.C. The universe that Genesis is describing is the flat earth with vaulted sky from ancient Mesopotamia. All Ancient Near Eastern cultures believed in a flat earth and vaulted sky created from the primordial sea (including Egypt) and scholars universally accept the idea that this belief came from the Sumerians out of Mesopotamia. The Caananites were heavily influenced by Mesopotamian culture and this influence is seen in many Bible stories.

This is one of the most common misconceptions of history. In reality, no educated person in Europe believed the earth was flat since at least the 5th century A.D. The false idea that people in the Middle Ages believed the earth was flat was invented and popularized by Washington Erving in his 19th century book, The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. The truth was, only the most ignorant of the masses didn't believe the earth was round. The argument in Columbus' day was not about whether it was round or flat, but whether it was small or big. Columbus believed the earth was actually smaller than it was and thought Eastern India was about where Eastern America is. Those who wouldn't support him were people who believed the earth was much bigger and that Columbus would never make it that far across the ocean.

I don't know much about Egyptian history yet but I'm almost certain the idea of a round earth developed in Greece at about 300 B.C. Either way, it's obvious by numerous passages in the Bible that the Hebrews did not believe the earth was round.

There are a few things that are not understood. With an accurate timing device like an ancient Egyptian water clock that was in use thousands of years before Christ and two accurately placed sun dials the curvature (size) of the earth can easily be calculated. Certainly by anyone able to construct pyramids based on the golden mean could understand and use simpler mathematics available to them. As I said there are indications as early as 4000 BC, that the Egyptians knew the earth was round as well as its size.

We also know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that many myths about the Hebrews (Jews) are inaccurate. The calendars in use at the time of Christ in the community that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrates without any possible argument that Jews at the time of Christ knew that the earth was round and had an accurate understanding of its size. References in the Bible during the time of King David indicate that this knowledge was also available and being used then.

The argument that Luke does not write about Jesus in Egypt is an empty argument. The ancient style of such writing did not impose the same requirements that you suggest. Among the ancients it simply was not an issue but is an argument based on modern analysis based on criteria from our place and time. As I have already posted – the accounts are not contradictory to texts of that place and time. If however, such texts were to pass a modern muster unlike any other texts of such a place and time would, in reality, be a greater indication of an altered or inaccurate document.

The Traveler

[Enlil-An]

With an accurate timing device like an ancient Egyptian water clock that was in use thousands of years before Christ and two accurately placed sun dials the curvature (size) of the earth can easily be calculated. Certainly by anyone able to construct pyramids based on the golden mean could understand and use simpler mathematics available to them. As I said there are indications as early as 4000 BC, that the Egyptians knew the earth was round as well as its size.

Can you please supply a link for this. From everything I've studied to everything I keep finding on line, pre-hellinized Egypt believed the earth was flat along with everbody else in the Ancient Near East.

We also know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that many myths about the Hebrews (Jews) are inaccurate. The calendars in use at the time of Christ in the community that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrates without any possible argument that Jews at the time of Christ knew that the earth was round and had an accurate understanding of its size.

The stories in the Old Testament don't come from Jesus' time, they come from long before the Near East was hellinized.

References in the Bible during the time of King David indicate that this knowledge was also available and being used then.

Citations please?

The argument that Luke does not write about Jesus in Egypt is an empty argument. The ancient style of such writing did not impose the same requirements that you suggest. Among the ancients it simply was not an issue but is an argument based on modern analysis based on criteria from our place and time.

What "requirements" are you talking about? I don't know where you get your information from, but you seem to have some seriously bogus sources. Your above statement is complete hogwash. The New Testament gospels were not written in the Ancient Era and the Nativity texts contradict each other in the original greek just as much as they do in old and modern english. They just aren't the same story.

[Traveler]

Can you please supply a link for this. From everything I've studied to everything I keep finding on line, pre-hellinized Egypt believed the earth was flat along with everbody else in the Ancient Near East.

I will try to make this easy for you – I cannot find a single Egyptologist trained very well in mathematics I doubt they will do the math. So google “calculate earth size” and see for yourself what is needed to determine the circumference of the earth. Knowing the different latitudes and measuring length of shadows at noon is all that is needed. Now take a look at ancient Egyptian knowledge of the seas. It is a simple conclusion the Egyptians had the mathematics they had the sea worthy ships and they knew about places such as India – you tell me. They had help from extra-terrestrials? There are internet links for that. The internet is all knowing.

The stories in the Old Testament don't come from Jesus' time, they come from long before the Near East was hellinized.

The book of Enoch came from Old Testament times was available at the time of Christ and indicates science mathematics capable of knowing and calculating the size of earth.

Citations please?

1 Kings 11:22 India is the only place at the time to get peacocks which means they sailed around Affrica. What knowledge did the Europeans need before they could accomplish the same thing? Yes you got it the correct size of a round earth.

What "requirements" are you talking about? I don't know where you get your information from, but you seem to have some seriously bogus sources. Your above statement is complete hogwash. The New Testament gospels were not written in the Ancient Era and the Nativity texts contradict each other in the original greek just as much as they do in old and modern english. They just aren't the same story.

Show me one historian outside of our modern era that agrees with you - including Islamic scholars that were very keen on Biblical text criticism.

The Traveler

[JohnnyRudick]

. . .Your above statement is complete hogwash. The New Testament gospels were not written in the Ancient Era and the Nativity texts contradict each other in the original greek just as much as they do in old and modern english. They just aren't the same story.

Four accounts of the same history.

Each given from different perspectives.

Scriptural Criticism aside, that is just the plane truth and they don't like it.

Correctors from the time of Pantanaeus to you today.

Bro. Rudick

Edited May 14, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
Spelling;-)

[lilered]

While I did not read everyones comments I did read a good many. What seems to me to be one of many explanations for many of the differences is that each of the Diciples had very different writing styles, in addition each had their own personality. This would be no different than if you ask the Quorum of the Twelve to seperatly write about the birth or life of Prophet Hinkley. There would be many different versions of the same story.

This phenomena is exactly why we should be careful about hanging on every single word in the scriptures and/or taking it out of context or looking for hidden meanings. Instead, we ought to be more concerned with understanding the various themes that are being taught and spend the effort on trying to improve on our obediance to the commandments.

[Snow]

While I did not read everyones comments I did read a good many. What seems to me to be one of many explanations for many of the differences is that each of the Diciples had very different writing styles, in addition each had their own personality. This would be no different than if you ask the Quorum of the Twelve to seperatly write about the birth or life of Prophet Hinkley. There would be many different versions of the same story.

This phenomena is exactly why we should be careful about hanging on every single word in the scriptures and/or taking it out of context or looking for hidden meanings. Instead, we ought to be more concerned with understanding the various themes that are being taught and spend the effort on trying to improve on our obediance to the commandments.

Different deal - no one would be claiming that the various Hinckley accounts were the inspired word of God or inerrant.

[Enlil-An]

I cannot find a single Egyptologist trained very well in mathematics I doubt they will do the math. So google “calculate earth size” and see for yourself what is needed to determine the circumference of the earth. Knowing the different latitudes and measuring length of shadows at noon is all that is needed.

Just because Egyptians had the mathimatical knowledge to discover the earth was spherical doesn't mean they discovered it. The technology existed for all kinds of inventions before they were actually invented. There is nothing in Egyptian literature or mythology that denotes that the Egyptians believed in a spherical earth and the Egyptian creation story and history of the Egyptian pantheon specifically state otherwise.

Now take a look at ancient Egyptian knowledge of the seas. It is a simple conclusion the Egyptians had the mathematics they had the sea worthy ships and they knew about places such as India – you tell me. They had help from extra-terrestrials?

People in the Ancient Near East didn't need to know the earth was round in order to find India. Trade with India had begun in the 3rd millenium with the Sumerians and Akkadians. All they had to do was sail through the Persian Gulf and hug the coast until they ran into India. It's right there. India was never a major trading partner with Egypt until the domestication of camels around 1000 BC and the creation of extensive caravan land routes. It was also at that time that Indian goods began to flood into Greek and Roman markets.

Egypt didn't need to know the earth was round in order to sail around Africa either (why you think they would want to do this is beyond me). All they had to do is follow the coast and it would take them around the entire continent. I'm not aware of them ever doing this, but it's not impossible.

The book of Enoch came from Old Testament times was available at the time of Christ and indicates science mathematics capable of knowing and calculating the size of earth.

That's funny because according to the The Book of the Courses of the Heavenly Luminaries which comprises chapters 72 through 82 in the Book of Enoch, describes how the sun emerges from a huge hole in the heavenly dome where earth and "heaven" meet in the east, rides across the vaulted dome-sky to the west, and then disappears in an aperture on the western side of the dome. The moon and stars have there own gates that they ascend and descend through. You can start reading about it here: Book of Enoch: The Book of the Courses of the Heavenly Luminaries: Chapter LXXII.

If you click on this link (The Flat-Earth Bible.) and scroll all the way down, you'll see an artists rendition of what Enoch is describing (I suggest you read that entire article, actually. It demonstrates quite clearly that the ancient Hebrews believed the earth was flat).

1 Kings 11:22 India is the only place at the time to get peacocks which means they sailed around Affrica.

Why on earth (literally) would the Israelites need to sail around Africa to get to India? India is completely in the opposite direction.

Show me one historian outside of our modern era that agrees with you - including Islamic scholars that were very keen on Biblical text criticism.

The only "historians" who don't agree on this are ones who take the traditional view that the Bible should be interpreted literally. Anyone who compares what they say to what the historians of the critical view say will see that when it comes to the birth narratives of Jesus, the critical position is the only logical one.

Four accounts of the same history.

Each given from different perspectives.

There are only two gospels that give an account of Jesus' birth and a careful reading of both clearly demonstrates that they are not different perspectives on the same story but different stories alltogether.

A better way to look at the gospels is to think of them like historical dramas, like a novel, or a play, or a movie. In movies based on historical events, many details of the history will be changed or compramised for the sake of the story (an added love story for example). There are at least 3 different films that I can think of based on the famous gunfight at the OK Corral, Wyatt Earp, Tombstone, and Gunfight At the OK Corral. Each one of them is based on an historical event but each of them takes several liberties with the facts surrounding it. In each the gunfight is alwasy very similar and the characters are the same but no one would say that these films are documentaries. Everyone knows that many parts of the movie are embellishments. Likewise, sometimes the gospels are telling different perspectives of the same event, sometimes they're changing events to suit the moral of their stories, and some events are dropped completely or invented whole sale to make a theological statement unique to that particular author.

[Snow]

Snow, forgive me if I sounded ungrateful at the recommendations you mentioned. I do have Jesus Interrupted (though my favorite of his is still probably Misquoting Jesus) and the other recommendations look good as well. But I'm more interested to find out if you knew of any LDS sources/scholars (this side of the millenium) that address these issues which you claim is "hardly breaking news" to the LDS community. Books from the historical critics I can find on my own.

Then you could check out How The New Testament Came to Be - Sperry Symposium, Deseret Books or Mormons and the Bible, Phillip Barlow, Oxford.

You may be surprised that in some ways Brigham Young shared your frustrations with the Bible. He thought that some Bible stories were "baby stories" that should be outgrown and likens Moses creation account to a mother telling her child that the child came from a hollow toad stool. He had little patience for the notion of inerrant, unimprovable, verbally perfect scripture - saying that if God were to rewrite the Bible Himself, it would be very different than it is now.

If I run across something else in my library, I can let you know but you might also keep your eyes open for the upcoming massive NT translation and commentary by the Church - but I think you also ought to heed remeumpton's thought: "Why are you so upset about the Church not teaching you certain things? Its responsibility is to teach the gospel, not about the flaws in the scriptures or in an individual's character. There are many places to find those things."

I can't be more specific than that. You said you believed that the Bible was a book that shows that the Lord allows man to fumble along with what the Lord gives him but that He had a hand in it enough to make sure that the "gospel truths necessary for our salvation" remained in tact. So I'm asking you for an example. What specific gospels truths necessary for our salvation do you believe remained intact throughout the Old and New Testaments?

You are asking for something that I didn't address - consistency between the OT and NT but off hand I'd say that the 10 commandments still applied as did the OT's insistence on prophets.

I don't understand the position many of you are taking that asking questions of others is somehow avoiding the responsibility of doing research. I have always considered discussion among people who are studying the same things as part of doing research

I was referring to your penchant for blaming the Church for your lack of education on matters the Church does not profess to be central to it's mission.

I also don't understand your belief that members who go to LDS sources to do research and get insights on the Bible are being irresponsible. It's natural for members to be predisposed to trust LDS scholarship. Most members feel that LDS scholars are the best sources to learn from because they not only have access to what's in the professional, secular fields, but also have additional insights because they accept modern revelation. How are Church members supposed to know that LDS scholars are not being honest, completely upfront or thorough in their research and that the sources on the outside (it has nothing to do with looking at the world with an "us" or "them" perspective) contain mountains of material that demonstrate the inacurracy of claims by scholars like Ogden and Skinner?

I can't address that since I didn't say that anyone was being irresponsible for going to LDS sources. My point is that if you want to learn about a topic, you have to go to a source that addresses that topic. See rameumpton's thought above.

[Enlil-An]

Then you could check out How The New Testament Came to Be - Sperry Symposium, Deseret Books or Mormons and the Bible, Phillip Barlow, Oxford.

Thanks. Those do look good (though one is $60).

You may be surprised that in some ways Brigham Young shared your frustrations with the Bible.

I would be interested in reading about that. Where can I find that?

but I think you also ought to heed remeumpton's thought: "Why are you so upset about the Church not teaching you certain things? Its responsibility is to teach the gospel, not about the flaws in the scriptures or in an individual's character. There are many places to find those things."

If the Church's job isn't to teach the scriptures from any point of view except what commandments we should live then they need to stop reprinting the student manuals and publishing new books that dedicate a lot space to the historical and archeological background to the stories. Deseret Book is full of books that expound on the New and Old Testament from a scholarly stand point. LDS literature has always concerned itself with studying every aspect of the scriptures including the stories, and their historical background.

You are asking for something that I didn't address - consistency between the OT and NT but off hand I'd say that the 10 commandments still applied as did the OT's insistence on prophets.

The Old Testament's view of prophets appears to be very different from the New Testament's. In the NT there are even prophetesses and women apostles. I haven't really checked to see if the ten commandments appear the NT except in maybe in Matthew or Luke.

The saving principles and ordinences of the gospel as we know them today don't show up in the Old Testament at all. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? The principle of faith isn't in the Old Testament. The word faith only appears in it twice and each time the footnotes tell us that it has more to do with loyalty - the same way someone is faithful to their spouse. Repentance doesn't appear very often in the OT either and when it does, it's usually referring God repenting, not man. While scholars have been able to show that baptism was an ancient Hebrew rite, it wasn't performed the same way that early Christians did. The Israelites were baptized several times throughout their life, not just once. And, of course, the concept of the Holy Ghost doesn't appear in the OT at all.

The more one looks at it, the more one gets the impression that the Judeo/Christian religion was a work in progress that evolved slowly overtime with new concepts and docrines being added until we have what we have today.

I was referring to your penchant for blaming the Church for your lack of education on matters the Church does not profess to be central to it's mission.

Studying and understanding the scriptures has always been a central theme of the Church's mission. One of the key purposes for the Book of Mormon is that it testifies to the truthfulness of the Bible. If I was responsible for my own education regarding the Bible, then the Church shouldn't have dedicated so much time and material for that very purpose. It shouldn't have tried to answer the scholarly questions regarding the sacred book.

The truth is that the Church and Church scholars have produced mass amounts of material discussing all aspects of the Bible. Historical, archeological, ecclesiastical, spiritual, and even philisophical. Yet in the overwelming majority of them, never do they address contradictions or discrepincies. In fact they go to great lengths to cover them up or brush them aside.

I can't address that since I didn't say that anyone was being irresponsible for going to LDS sources. My point is that if you want to learn about a topic, you have to go to a source that addresses that topic.

Well, if an LDS member wanted to study the topic of the New Testament, wouldn't their natural course of action be to go to LDS sources? And if LDS publications are full of what appears to be scholarly research about the topic being studied, why would that member have cause to doubt the veracity of such works enough to go out and get another book from an alternate source? One that seems to be refuting many things the LDS sources say?