The Bible

[Jorgen]

As a Christian I have found that we must be honest with the Bible, interpreting it for what it itself says, and not imposing our own doctrines onto the Bible. Even doctrines that we think are Biblical must be tested against the Bible, to see if they are really supported by the Bible. And one doctrine not supported by the Bible is the doctrine of Inerrancy.

The Bible can be trusted, but not the human doctrine of Inerrancy.


The two infancy narratives of Jesus, in Matthew and Luke, contain a number of divergences and contradictions. One such contradiction concerns the geographic origin of Jesus and his family. The SAB explains an aspect of this contradiction as follows:
"2:14 - Matthew tells us that Joseph, Mary, and the baby Jesus left for Egypt soon after Jesus' birth, yet Luke (2:39) says they went directly to Nazareth after his birth."

Gastrich's reply to the SAB is short and sweet. He states that:

"Matthew 2:23 indicates that Jesus and His family went to Nazareth to live. Luke simply omits the flight to and from Egypt."


Jason Gastrich employs a common Inerrantist tactic in his attempt to harmonize Matthew and Luke. Where two Biblical narratives differ, Inerrantists often resort to the explanation that the narrators have included some details, and have omitted other details, yet together the two narratives tell a complete story. It is often asserted that an omission is not itself a contradiction. There is an element of truth to such an assertion. After all, when two people give an account of the same event, they will typically include some details which the other person does not include, and vice-versa. After all, you cannot contradict nothing, which is all that an omission is! But while it is correct to say that an omission cannot result in a contradiction, in itself, this point can also be misleading. For, it is the narrative as a whole which may or may not contradict another narrative. It is a trivial point that anything remaining unsaid within that narrative cannot contradict another narrative.
And in order to properly interpret the narrative as a whole, one must first provide the best interpretation of that particular narrative, not first leap to force its harmonization with a second narrative.

When we examine the two infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke, it is apparent that there is in fact a contradiction. The contradiction is not uncovered by comparing the account of the flight to Egypt in Matthew with its omission in Luke, as the Inerrantist would have you do. Instead, the contradiction is demonstrated by the correct interpretation of each of the two narratives - paying special attention to the two sets of movements of Jesus' family, and to the towns and houses Jesus' family is claimed to live in by Matthew and Luke.

New Testament scholar Raymond Brown summarises the issues well:

"The two narratives are not only different - they are contrary to each other in a number of details. According to Luke 1:26 and 2:39 Mary lives in Nazareth, and so that the census of Augustus is invoked to explain how the child was born in Bethlehem, away from home. In Matthew there is no hint of a coming to Bethlehem, for Joseph and Mary are in a house at Bethlehem where seemingly Jesus was born (2:11). The only journey that Matthew has to explain is why the family went to Nazareth when they came from Egypt instead of returning to their native Bethlehem (2:22-23). A second difficulty is that Luke tells us that the family returned peaceably to Nazareth after the birth at Bethlehem (2:22, 39); this is irreconcilable with Matthew's implication (2:16) that the child was almost two years old when the family fled from Bethlehem to Egypt and even older when the family came back from Egypt and moved to Nazareth."
- Raymond E. Brown The birth of the Messiah -- a commentary on the infancy narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (New York: Doubleday, 1993, updated edition), p. 36.


But let us examine these points in more detail, by first interpreting Luke, and then Matthew.

Luke's Account

Luke has the Holy Family move from their hometown in Nazareth in Galilee, to Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus, and back to Nazareth in Galilee.


Nazareth in Galilee is shown to be the Holy Family's hometown before the birth of Jesus in Luke 2:3-4. Joseph, Jesus' legal father, has to travel from his "own town" of Nazareth in Galilee, to Bethlehem in Judea, only because of the census of Quirinius:
Luke 2:1-4: "In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 All went to their own towns to be registered. 4 Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David."
Also, in Luke 1.26, Nazareth was declared to be Joseph's hometown nine months earlier, at the time of Mary's conception:

Luke 1.26-27: "Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary."According to Luke, Jesus was born in Bethlehem:
Luke 2:6-7: "While they were there , the time came for her to deliver her child. 7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son … "Luke then describes the circumcision of Jesus, and the purification (from the 'impurities' of childbirth) of Mary. Circumcision was carried out on the eighth day after birth (Lev 12:3), and the mother was considered ceremonially unclean for the 7 days following childbirth, and 33 days following the circumcision (Lev 12:2, 4). After this 40-day period, the mother had to provide a sheep as a sacrifice to restore her purity. This sacrifice could be changed to two turtledoves or pigeons if she were too poor to afford a sheep (Lev 12:6-8). As Luke 2:24 shows, Mary offered two turtledoves or pigeons:
Luke 2:21-24: "After eight days had passed, it was time to circumcise the child; and he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. 22 When the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male shall be designated as holy to the Lord"), 24 and they offered a sacrifice according to what is stated in the law of the Lord, "a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.""Leviticus 12 sets out the relevant "law of Moses", the requirements of which took a period of 40 days following childbirth. Luke is then quite clear that Joseph and Mary returned to their "own town" of Nazareth "when they had finished" these 40 days of legal requirements:
Luke 2:39: "When they [Joseph and Mary] had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.
Matthew's Account

However, Matthew has the Holy Family take an entirely different route, from an entirely different hometown!


At some point following the birth of Jesus, the Holy Family are commanded to go to Egypt, from their house in Bethlehem. If this "house" (Matthew 2:11) is the Holy Family's own house, this is complete contradiction to Luke's account, which places the Holy Family's hometown in Nazareth, Galilee. This is the most likely meaning of 'oikia' ("house"), which most naturally refers to a family's abode. As Raymond Brown explains:
"Presumably this was the house which served as the home of Joseph and Mary who were inhabitants of Bethlehem. The view is quite different from that of Luke 2:1-7. There have been many attempts, often quite forced, to harmonize the information." (p. 176)Even if this natural interpretation of 'oikia' is rejected by the Inerrantist, there is conclusive proof later on in chapter 2 of Matthew that Bethlehem was the Holy Family's hometown. For, when Joseph is told to return to Israel:
1. [I]Joseph's first thought is to return to Judea (the province in which Bethlehem is), not Nazareth (Matthew 2:22). Naturally, the Holy Family wished to return to their hometown, which Matthew 2:22 reveals was in Judea. But Nazareth is in Galilee, not Judea!
2. Only after being warned in a dream not to return to Judea, Joseph goes instead to Galilee (Matthew 2:22).
3. On coming to Nazareth, Joseph is not described as returning to the home that Luke believes he has there. To the contrary, Joseph is described as "making his home" there. The phrase "made his home in a town called Nazareth" (Matthew 2:23) reveals that Joseph is settling in a new place, which Matthew now introduces for the first time! Far from returning to his hometown, Joseph has arrived in a town that is altogether new to him.
4. What is more, it is only because of Joseph's arrival in Nazareth at this time that Matthew sees fit to claim that Jesus will now fulfill the prophecy, "He will be called a Nazorean" (Matthew 2:23).

As Raymond Brown summarises:
"Joseph's first thought was to return to Judea, i.e., to "Bethlehem of Judea" (2:1), because he and Mary lived in a house there (2:11). Since Joseph and Mary were citizens of Bethlehem, Matthew takes pains to explain why they went to Nazareth. In Luke's account, where they are citizens of Nazareth, the painstaking explanation is centered on why they went to Bethlehem (2:1-5)."
So, in contrast to Luke, Matthew has the Holy Family move from their house in Bethlehem, to Egypt, and then settle for the first time in Nazareth!


Moreover, this occurs over a period of some years following Jesus' birth. Remember that Luke has Jesus leave Bethlehem for Jerusalem after 40 days, the term of Mary's purification (Luke 2:21-24, 39). So, in Luke, Jesus is still little more than a newborn baby. But the wise men who visited Jesus in Matthew's account provide information to Herod about Jesus' age that leads to him killing all boys up to two years old. The wise men had supposedly told Herod when the star had appeared, so that Herod knew Jesus's age (i.e. up to 2 years old).
Matthew 2:16: "When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men."And in Matthew's account, the Holy Family remain in Egypt for some time more, awaiting the death of Herod. Yet, according to Luke, Jesus travelled to Nazareth with his family only after 40 days:
Matthew 2:15, 19-21: "and [Joseph, the child and his mother] remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, "Out of Egypt I have called my son." … 19 When Herod died, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, 20 "Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child's life are dead." "
Summary: The contradiction


Luke places Joseph and Mary at home in Nazareth, Galilee, from before the birth of Jesus (Luke 1:26-27; 2:4). After a trip to Bethlehem, Judea (Luke 2:5), during which Mary gives birth to Jesus and has him circumcised (Luke 2:6-7, 21), they return home to Nazareth, Galilee. If he is presented to the temple in Jerusalem after 40 days as was the custom (Matthew 2:21-38) - the return would be 40 days after Jesus' birth (Luke 2:39).
[I]But:Matthew places Joseph and Mary's original home in Bethlehem, Judea. Matthew does not believe that their original home was in Nazareth, Galilee. This is clear from the fact that they begin in Bethlehem, as shown by the visit to their home in Bethlehem, Judea by the wise men in Matthew 2:1-12, and Herod seeking to destroy all Bethlehem infants in Matthew 2:16-18; and especially as shown by the angel of the Lord telling them to return home to Judea, Israel in Matthew 2:19-21, and the decision not to do so but to settle in a new town, Nazareth, Galilee.
The two situations are represented in the two maps below: So for Luke: the Holy Family begins in Nazareth, Galilee. (1) They travel to Bethlehem, Judea for a temporary census, and remain approximately 40 days after Jesus's birth there, before (2) making sacrifice at Jerusalem. (3) They then return to their home in Nazareth, Galilee.

But for Matthew: the Holy Family begins in Bethlehem, Judea. (1) After a period of up to 2 years, they then travel to Egypt, to wait out the death of Herod, for a further period of months or years. They are then told to return to Israel - but (2) later travel to Galilee to "settle" in the town of Nazareth.

The contradiction is demonstrated by a proper examination of each of the two infancy narratives. Gastrich's attempt to claim that the two accounts merely involve 'omissions' is disproved by the contradictory movements of the Holy Family, and the different hometowns which are presupposed in Matthew (Bethlehem) and Luke (Nazareth).

[Churchwork]

In your profile you said you were "not sure" (this was your reply to all 17 questions at the time of this posting) about the atonement of Jesus Christ, yet you call yourself a Christian. If you don't know the cross, then you are not a Christian.

You are not being honest with yourself, but intellectually dishonest.

You are also being dishonest with your own reasoning, in which your flawed thoughts are exposed as lame and overassuming.

To be honest with yourself is to admit that you are a bad person and don't mind going to hell.

[Churchwork]

As a Christian I have found that we must be honest with the Bible, interpreting it for what it itself says, and not imposing our own doctrines onto the Bible. Even doctrines that we think are Biblical must be tested against the Bible, to see if they are really supported by the Bible. And one doctrine not supported by the Bible is the doctrine of Inerrancy.


The Bible can be trusted, but not the human doctrine of Inerrancy. The two infancy narratives of Jesus, in Matthew and Luke, contain a number of divergences and contradictions. One such contradiction concerns the geographic origin of Jesus and his family. The SAB explains an aspect of this contradiction as follows:
"2:14 - Matthew tells us that Joseph, Mary, and the baby Jesus left for Egypt soon after Jesus' birth, yet Luke (2:39) says they went directly to Nazareth after his birth."

Gastrich's reply to the SAB is short and sweet. He states that:

"Matthew 2:23 indicates that Jesus and His family went to Nazareth to live. Luke simply omits the flight to and from Egypt."
Jason Gastrich employs a common Inerrantist tactic in his attempt to harmonize Matthew and Luke. Where two Biblical narratives differ, Inerrantists often resort to the explanation that the narrators have included some details, and have omitted other details, yet together the two narratives tell a complete story. It is often asserted that an omission is not itself a contradiction. There is an element of truth to such an assertion. After all, when two people give an account of the same event, they will typically include some details which the other person does not include, and vice-versa. After all, you cannot contradict nothing, which is all that an omission is! But while it is correct to say that an omission cannot result in a contradiction, in itself, this point can also be misleading. For, it is the narrative as a whole which may or may not contradict another narrative. It is a trivial point that anything remaining unsaid within that narrative cannot contradict another narrative.



And in order to properly interpret the narrative as a whole, one must first provide the best interpretation of that particular narrative, not first leap to force its harmonization with a second narrative.

What is important is every effort should be made to see how they harmonize. If there then is harmony, then any effort to denounce such harmony would be in vain since both writers have the Holy Spirit moving within them to perserve these different accounts that do find a way to be reconciled.

When we examine the two infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke, it is apparent that there is in fact a contradiction. The contradiction is not uncovered by comparing the account of the flight to Egypt in Matthew with its omission in Luke, as the Inerrantist would have you do. Instead, the contradiction is demonstrated by the correct interpretation of each of the two narratives - paying special attention to the two sets of movements of Jesus' family, and to the towns and houses Jesus' family is claimed to live in by Matthew and Luke. New Testament scholar Raymond Brown summarises the issues well:
"The two narratives are not only different - they are contrary to each other in a number of details. According to Luke 1:26 and 2:39 Mary lives in Nazareth, and so that the census of Augustus is invoked to explain how the child was born in Bethlehem, away from home. In Matthew there is no hint of a coming to Bethlehem, for Joseph and Mary are in a house at Bethlehem where seemingly Jesus was born (2:11). The only journey that Matthew has to explain is why the family went to Nazareth when they came from Egypt instead of returning to their native Bethlehem (2:22-23).Yes, that's correct, and thus, there is no contradiction or difficulty therefore.
A second difficulty is that Luke tells us that the family returned peaceably to Nazareth after the birth at Bethlehem (2:22, 39); this is irreconcilable with Matthew's implication (2:16) that the child was almost two years old when the family fled from Bethlehem to Egypt and even older when the family came back from Egypt and moved to Nazareth."




- Raymond E. Brown The birth of the Messiah -- a commentary on the infancy narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (New York: Doubleday, 1993, updated edition), p. 36.
We do not know how old the child was, but that he was likely under 2 years of age when fleeing Bethlehem. And when returning to Nazareth, Luke's account does not demand an age. vv.22,39 in Luke chapter 2 do not indicate an age in Nazareth, only that they did return in v.39. Obviously, there was the trip to Egypt or there was a stop off at Nazareth before going to Egypt. Either way is fine by me. This is not hard to see.
But let us examine these points in more detail, by first interpreting Luke, and then Matthew.
Luke's Account
Luke has the Holy Family move from their hometown in Nazareth in Galilee, to Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus, and back to Nazareth in Galilee.


Nazareth in Galilee is shown to be the Holy Family's hometown before the birth of Jesus in Luke 2:3-4. Joseph, Jesus' legal father, has to travel from his "own town" of Nazareth in Galilee, to Bethlehem in Judea, only because of the census of Quirinius:
Luke 2:1-4: "In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 All went to their own towns to be registered. 4 Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David."
Also, in Luke 1.26, Nazareth was declared to be Joseph's hometown nine months earlier, at the time of Mary's conception:

Luke 1.26-27: "Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary."

According to Luke, Jesus was born in Bethlehem:


Luke 2:6-7: "While they were there [in Bethlehem], the time came for her to deliver her child. 7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son … "
Luke then describes the circumcision of Jesus, and the purification (from the 'impurities' of childbirth) of Mary. Circumcision was carried out on the eighth day after birth (Lev 12:3), and the mother was considered ceremonially unclean for the 7 days following childbirth, and 33 days following the circumcision (Lev 12:2, 4). After this 40-day period, the mother had to provide a sheep as a sacrifice to restore her purity. This sacrifice could be changed to two turtledoves or pigeons if she were too poor to afford a sheep (Lev 12:6-8). As Luke 2:24 shows, Mary offered two turtledoves or pigeons:

Luke 2:21-24: "After eight days had passed, it was time to circumcise the child; and he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. 22 When the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male shall be designated as holy to the Lord"), 24 and they offered a sacrifice according to what is stated in the law of the Lord, "a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons."
Leviticus 12 sets out the relevant "law of Moses", the requirements of which took a period of 40 days following childbirth. Luke is then quite clear that Joseph and Mary returned to their "own town" of Nazareth "when they had finished" these 40 days of legal requirements:

Luke 2:39: "When they [Joseph and Mary] had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.
Amen. In between was the trip to Egypt either directly to Egypt first or to Nazareth, then Egypt. Both ways work.
Matthew's Account

However, Matthew has the Holy Family take an entirely different route, from an entirely different hometown!It is the same route, you just need to be open to it instead of constricting the Scriptures in your mental gymnastics.

What I particularly love about these two accounts is that they are so diverse, yet they agree, even still. It shows the strenght of the authenticity of the Word. If both accounts were more similar we would have less confidence in them.
At some point following the birth of Jesus, the Holy Family are commanded to go to Egypt, from their house in Bethlehem. If this "house" (Matthew 2:11) is the Holy Family's own house, this is complete contradiction to Luke's account, which places the Holy Family's hometown in Nazareth, Galilee. This is the most likely meaning of 'oikia' ("house"), which most naturally refers to a family's abode. As Raymond Brown explains:

"Presumably this was the house which served as the home of Joseph and Mary who were inhabitants of Bethlehem. The view is quite different from that of Luke 2:1-7. There have been many attempts, often quite forced, to harmonize the information." (p. 176) A mistaken assumption is that it is the family's house. The Scriptures say "the house", not "their house". It was merely a house they were staying at temporarily. Also I would not call the family a Holy Family as though somehow there is more than one God. Only Jesus is God. Notice the p.176 comment just self-declares mindlessly without making an effort to back his point, since it cannot be backed. Luke 2.7 is a "feeding trough" (HNV) for the house they were at, as they could not stay at the inn.

It is quite forced to deny the proper interpretation as preserved by HNV and other Bible versions and the house they stayed at. Picture in your mind a house that has a feeding trough for its animals. It's called a farm.

Even if this natural interpretation of 'oikia' is rejected by the Inerrantist, there is conclusive proof later on in chapter 2 of Matthew that Bethlehem was the Holy Family's hometown. For, when Joseph is told to return to Israel:

Christians need not deny "oikia", defined as "an inhabited edifice, a dwelling" which could easily be near a feeding trough. Bethlehem was their home town but they no longer dwelt there. They were dwelling in Galilee before having to return to Bethlehem for the census.

1. Joseph's first thought is to return to Judea (the province in which Bethlehem is), not Nazareth (Matthew 2:22). Naturally, the Holy Family wished to return to their hometown, which Matthew 2:22 reveals was in Judea. But Nazareth is in Galilee, not Judea!
Yes. And there is no problem with this.

2. Only after being warned in a dream not to return to Judea, Joseph goes instead to Galilee (Matthew 2:22).
Yes. And there is no problem with this.

3. On coming to Nazareth, Joseph is not described as returning to the home that Luke believes he has there. To the contrary, Joseph is described as "making his home" there. The phrase "made his home in a town called Nazareth" (Matthew 2:23) reveals that Joseph is settling in a new place, which Matthew now introduces for the first time! Far from returning to his hometown, Joseph has arrived in a town that is altogether new to him.
When they did return to Galilee they dwelt as Nazarenes. This is certainly a more established foundation in Nazareth than any time before Joseph had gone to this town, which he had been to before (Luke 1.26), this time with the Son of God.
4. What is more, it is only because of Joseph's arrival in Nazareth at this time that Matthew sees fit to claim that Jesus will now fulfill the prophecy, "He will be called a Nazorean" (Matthew 2:23).
Yes. Sounds fair.

As Raymond Brown summarises: "Joseph's first thought was to return to Judea, i.e., to "Bethlehem of Judea" (2:1), because he and Mary lived in a house there (2:11). Since Joseph and Mary were citizens of Bethlehem, Matthew takes pains to explain why they went to Nazareth. In Luke's account, where they are citizens of Nazareth, the painstaking explanation is centered on why they went to Bethlehem (2:1-5)."
Yes. There is no problem with this.


So, in contrast to Luke, Matthew has the Holy Family move from their house in Bethlehem, to Egypt, and then settle for the first time in Nazareth!
Moreover, this occurs over a period of some years following Jesus' birth. Remember that Luke has Jesus leave Bethlehem for Jerusalem after 40 days, the term of Mary's purification (Luke 2:21-24, 39). So, in Luke, Jesus is still little more than a newborn baby. But the wise men who visited Jesus in Matthew's account provide information to Herod about Jesus' age that leads to him killing all boys up to two years old. The wise men had supposedly told Herod when the star had appeared, so that Herod knew Jesus's age (i.e. up to 2 years old).
Why overassume Jesus was 2 years old or even 1 year old? The key to reading Scriptures is not to overassume anything in true humility, and see the reconciliation of Scriptures as this will increase faith. If Jesus could have been 1 or 2 years old, would it not been more strategic to kill all children from 4 years and under just to be sure? What if Jesus was 2 and a half years old, when only 2 years and under were murdered? Normally when a person wants to be sure of something they produce a margin of error for themselves.Matthew 2:16: "When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men."
And in Matthew's account, the Holy Family remain in Egypt for some time more, awaiting the death of Herod. Yet, according to Luke, Jesus travelled to Nazareth with his family only after 40 days:
It is not the case at all. It does not say IMMEDIATELY after 40 days, but it was after the affairs in Bethlehem were completed, did they at some point return to Galilee in Nazareth either for a brief time before going to Egypt or after is fine. Have you ever done that? Have you ever had a trip planned but had to make a pit stop? I have.

Matthew 2:15, 19-21: "and [Joseph, the child and his mother] remained there [in Egypt] until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, "Out of Egypt I have called my son." … 19 When Herod died, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, 20 "Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child's life are dead." "


Summary: The contradiction
Luke places Joseph and Mary at home in Nazareth, Galilee, from before the birth of Jesus (Luke 1:26-27; 2:4). After a trip to Bethlehem, Judea (Luke 2:5), during which Mary gives birth to Jesus and has him circumcised (Luke 2:6-7, 21), they return home to Nazareth, Galilee. If he is presented to the temple in Jerusalem after 40 days as was the custom (Matthew 2:21-38) - the return would be 40 days after Jesus' birth (Luke 2:39).
Sounds fair, except there two options: 1) to Nazareth then Egypt, or 2) Egypt then Nazareth. There is no legal requirement here for an immediate return, only the fact of the return after the affairs in Bethlehem and Jerusalem were completed. This would seem to be reasonable.
Matthew places Joseph and Mary's original home in Bethlehem, Judea. Matthew does not believe that their original home was in Nazareth, Galilee. This is clear from the fact that they begin in Bethlehem, as shown by the visit to their home in Bethlehem, Judea by the wise men in Matthew 2:1-12, and Herod seeking to destroy all Bethlehem infants in Matthew 2:16-18; and especially as shown by the angel of the Lord telling them to return home to Judea, Israel in Matthew 2:19-21, and the decision not to do so but to settle in a new town, Nazareth, Galilee.
The two situations are represented in the two maps below:
Yes. There is no problem with this. These statements are true. Like I said, no buts. If there is a contradiction, you have to show rather than simply stating what has indeed occured.

In this map the 1,2,3 of Luke agrees with the 1,2 of Matthew since for Matthew there is allowed a 0 (Nazareth) before the 1 in Matthew even though it is not mentioned, nor is it necessary to be mentioned. Basic logic with humility!
So for Luke: the Holy Family begins in Nazareth, Galilee. (1) They travel to Bethlehem, Judea for a temporary census, and remain approximately 40 days after Jesus's birth there, before (2) making sacrifice at Jerusalem. (3) They then return to their home in Nazareth, Galilee.2.5 allows for either straight to Egypt or a pit stop in Nazareth for supplies. Perfect agreement.
But for Matthew: the Holy Family begins in Bethlehem, Judea. (1) After a period of up to 2 years, they then travel to Egypt, to wait out the death of Herod, for a further period of months or years. They are then told to return to Israel - but (2) later travel to Galilee to "settle" in the town of Nazareth.
The <2 years agrees with 40+ days according to laws of math. Ergo, no contradiction.

The contradiction is demonstrated by a proper examination of each of the two infancy narratives. Gastrich's attempt to claim that the two accounts merely involve 'omissions' is disproved by the contradictory movements of the Holy Family, and the different hometowns which are presupposed in Matthew (Bethlehem) and Luke (Nazareth).
We find no contradiction, as detailed above, since there is not an issue of hometowns if you don't misread the meaning of "the house" not needing to be a permanent abode, but only a temporary usage for their temporary stay in Bethlehem. Also, technically speaking, Matthew's account is not an omission if Matthew never even knew about it. How can you omit something if you don't know about it? I would not overassume omissions.

SAB always fails in its assesments. I find their efforts very dull-minded. The inerrancy of the 66 books of God's Word remain undefeatable.

[Jorgen]

What is important is every effort should be made to see how they harmonize. .
Thank you for your reply, Troy.

However, as illustrated by your above quote, your whole reply makes a basic methodological error of interpretation, and that is this: Your primary approach to the text of scripture is not to seek the best interpretation, but to seek a harmonizing interpretation.

The fallacy involved in such a hermeneutic is that the best interpretation is not always the harmonizing interpretation.

'Harmonization' never of itself disproves that there is an actual contradiction in the text.

A simple example will illustrate.

Imagine the following construction of two texts. A tragic death has occurred. Mr Plod the policeman interviews Witness A, who makes the following written statement "Mrs Frank was standing on the sidewalk, before going out on the road, and getting hit by Mr Driver in his car. She died."

Mr Plod then intervews Witness B, who makes the following written statement: "Mrs Frankwas standing on top of the Citibank Building, and jumped off, landing in the middle of the road. She died on impact. And then Mr Driver hit her in his car."

Mr Plod has to write a report. He trusts both of the witnesses, because he knows them well. So Mr Plod's report is as follows:
"Mrs Frank was standing on top of the Citibank Building. She jumped off, bounced from the side of the road - so that it could be technically said that she was 'standing' there, even for a mere instance - and then landed on the road. Witness A only saw her from that instance she was 'standing' on the side of the road, so described her as standing there. Witness A also describes her as 'going'. Now, this does not rule out bouncing into the middle of the road, as the word 'to go' in the dictionary only requires that a person "go from one place to another". And it is clear that by bouncing into the middle of the road, she went "from one place to another". This also agrees with Witness B, who narrates events from the time he saw her on top of the Citibank Building. Witness B said that Mrs Frank landed in the middle of the road. He was, of course, describing where she ended up. To say where someone has 'landed' only requires that you know where they ended up.

After landing in the middle of the road, Mrs Frank was hit by Mr Driver's car. Although Witness A then told me that Mrs Frank died, there is no chronology involved. Witness A was merely narrating two facts, (1) that Mrs Frank was hit by Mr Driver's car, and (2) that Mrs Frank died. There is no necessity that these two events be read as though they had any chronological order. Witnesses often say things out of order in the heat of the moment.

And so, having completely harmonized the two Witness accounts, I conclude that there is no contradiction between them."An absurd 'harmonization', to be sure. But when compared with the 6 cock-crows of some inerrantists, and some equally imaginative harmonizations, it is comparatively mild.

The two texts have indeed been harmonized. But, what if we have 'the eye of God', and know what happened in actual fact, and that the actual facts were as Witness A narrated them - and that Mrs Frank was merely standing on the sidewalk, waiting to cross the road? What is the result here? We now know that there is an actual contradiction between the two accounts of Witness A and Witness B. Yet - the texts of their statements are able to be perfectly harmonized.

What does this example teach us? Although one may harmonize two texts, this does not disprove a contradiction between the texts.

What should Mr Plod have done? Let's say both Witnesses also died after making the statements, and there were no other witnesses (this puts us in much the same position as reading the Gospels). Mr Plod should have:
1. worked out what each person was intending to say.
2. concluded, in this case, that it was clear that Witness A was intending to narrate a quite different account from Witness B. While Witness A was narrating an 'accident', Witness B was narrating an intentional 'suicide'.
3. decided whether Witness A was correct, or Witness B, or neither.

Each of these steps are essental. First of all, we must interpret each Biblical text in an alleged contradiction in its own right. We must seek out the intended meaning of each of its authors. If we leap straight to the step of 'harmonizing' the two texts without first working out what the best meaning of each text is, then we disrespect the individual texts, and inevitably produce an interpretation that has not taken into account the intended meaning of the authors.

And, the result of establishing the intended meaning within each text, the results naturally follow:
1. If the best meanings of each text result in a contradiction, we conclude the texts are contradictory.
2. If the best meanings of each text result in no contradiction, we conclude the texts are not contradictory.
3. If the best meanings of each text results in the likelihood of contradiction being about as likely as not (i.e. 50:50), we conclude the texts are not contradictory.
4. If the best meanings of each text result in insufficient evidence to determine whether there is a contradiction, we conclude the texts are not contradictory.

If you first try to seek a harmonization, rather than the best meaning, you will inevitably miss the best and proper interpretation of scripture on many occasions. A poor hermeneutic leads the inerrantist to misinterpret the nativity accounts.





If there then is harmony, then any effort to denounce such harmony would be in vain since both writers have the Holy Spirit moving within them to perserve these different accounts that do find a way to be reconciled.
This conclusion wrongly presupposes that the Holy Spirit was concerned that every detail in scripture was in harmony with every other part. But this is arguably not true, and therefore the conclusion is faulty.

New Testament scholar Raymond Brown explains that scripture is only in 'harmony' to the extent that it conveys the message of salvation that the Holy Spirit wishes to convey via humans. All the other little details, insofar as they do not affect the doctrine of scripture, need not be in harmony, because the Holy Spirit does not will it to be in harmony:

“The Books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.”

“Everything in Scripture is inerrant to the extent to which it conforms to the salvific purpose of God.”






At some point following the birth of Jesus, the Holy Family are commanded to go to Egypt, from their house in Bethlehem. If this "house" (Matthew 2:11) is the Holy Family's own house, this is complete contradiction to Luke's account, which places the Holy Family's hometown in Nazareth, Galilee. This is the most likely meaning of 'oikia' ("house"), which most naturally refers to a family's abode. As Raymond Brown explains:
"Presumably this was the house which served as the home of Joseph and Mary who were inhabitants of Bethlehem. The view is quite different from that of Luke 2:1-7. There have been many attempts, often quite forced, to harmonize the information." (p. 176)Even if this natural interpretation of 'oikia' is rejected by the Inerrantist, there is conclusive proof later on in chapter 2 of Matthew that Bethlehem was the Holy Family's hometown. For, when Joseph is told to return to Israel:

1. Joseph's first thought is to return to Judea (the province in which Bethlehem is), not Nazareth (Matthew 2:22). Naturally, the Holy Family wished to return to their hometown, which Matthew 2:22 reveals was in Judea. But Nazareth is in Galilee, not Judea!


Yes. And there is no problem with this.



2. Only after being warned in a dream not to return to Judea, Joseph goes instead to Galilee (Matthew 2:22).


Yes. And there is no problem with this.


3. On coming to Nazareth, Joseph is not described as returning to the home that Luke believes he has there. To the contrary, Joseph is described as "making his home" there. The phrase "made his home in a town called Nazareth" (Matthew 2:23) reveals that Joseph is settling in a new place, which Matthew now introduces for the first time! Far from returning to his hometown, Joseph has arrived in a town that is altogether new to him.


When they did return to Galilee they dwelt as Nazarenes. This is certainly a more established foundation in Nazareth than any time before Joseph had gone to this town, which he had been to before (Luke 1.26), this time with the Son of God.


4. What is more, it is only because of Joseph's arrival in Nazareth at this time that Matthew sees fit to claim that Jesus will now fulfill the prophecy, "He will be called a Nazorean" (Matthew 2:23).


Yes. Sounds fair.

Although you agree with most of the evidence which I produced to show that Joseph and Mary settled in Nazareth (3 out of 4 of the above), it is interesting that you rejected my conclusion.

The reason does not lie in the evidence itself, but in the methodology you apply to the evidence which, as I explained above in my discussion on hermeneutics, is faulty.

Applying your methodology, even a very improbable interpretation would be grounds for dismissing a highly probable interpretation - on the sole criterion that the very improbable interpretation provided a harmony, while the highly probable interpretation did not. This cannot be right! Until you adopt a interpretational methodology that is not susceptible to this result, how can any of your results in the discussion of the nativity be trusted? The only answer is: they cannot.

I trust that helps.

[Churchwork]

However, as illustrated by your above quote, your whole reply makes a basic methodological error of interpretation, and that is this: Your primary approach to the text of scripture is not to seek the best interpretation, but to seek a harmonizing interpretation.
The best interpretation is that which harmonizes if it is possible. Harmony is God's will and therefore, it is the best interpretation unless error can blatantly be shown, and you failed in this regard. Therefore, you should give your life to Christ. I can sense by the Holy Spirit the usefulness of banning you (but I will give you one last post to be merciful and courteous before banning you, which at this point I need not do, but I will let you have your final say), because you really have nothing to offer as the evil spirit makes claims in your spirit that you willingly accept as your own thoughts. Such reasonings are flawed each time as we have seen.



The fallacy involved in such a hermeneutic is that the best interpretation is not always the harmonizing interpretation.
This is a false statement (see my previous statement for the reason why).


'Harmonization' never of itself disproves that there is an actual contradiction in the text.

Harmony does in fact disprove the claim since the benefit of the doubt is given. In the court of law, if one who accuses can not back his claim, then his idea is thrown out as merely conjecture because it does not harmonize with expectations.



A simple example will illustrate.

Imagine the following construction of two texts. A tragic death has occurred. Mr Plod the policeman interviews Witness A, who makes the following written statement "Mrs Frank was standing on the sidewalk, before going out on the road, and getting hit by Mr Driver in his car. She died."

Mr Plod then intervews Witness B, who makes the following written statement: "Mrs Frankwas standing on top of the Citibank Building, and jumped off, landing in the middle of the road. She died on impact. And then Mr Driver hit her in his car."

Mr Plod has to write a report. He trusts both of the witnesses, because he knows them well. So Mr Plod's report is as follows:
"Mrs Frank was standing on top of the Citibank Building. She jumped off, bounced from the side of the road - so that it could be technically said that she was 'standing' there, even for a mere instance - and then landed on the road. Witness A only saw her from that instance she was 'standing' on the side of the road, so described her as standing there. Witness A also describes her as 'going'. Now, this does not rule out bouncing into the middle of the road, as the word 'to go' in the dictionary only requires that a person "go from one place to another". And it is clear that by bouncing into the middle of the road, she went "from one place to another". This also agrees with Witness B, who narrates events from the time he saw her on top of the Citibank Building. Witness B said that Mrs Frank landed in the middle of the road. He was, of course, describing where she ended up. To say where someone has 'landed' only requires that you know where they ended up.

After landing in the middle of the road, Mrs Frank was hit by Mr Driver's car. Although Witness A then told me that Mrs Frank died, there is no chronology involved. Witness A was merely narrating two facts, (1) that Mrs Frank was hit by Mr Driver's car, and (2) that Mrs Frank died. There is no necessity that these two events be read as though they had any chronological order. Witnesses often say things out of order in the heat of the moment.

And so, having completely harmonized the two Witness accounts, I conclude that there is no contradiction between them."An absurd 'harmonization', to be sure. But when compared with the 6 cock-crows of some inerrantists, and some equally imaginative harmonizations, it is comparatively mild.

The two texts have indeed been harmonized. But, what if we have 'the eye of God', and know what happened in actual fact, and that the actual facts were as Witness A narrated them - and that Mrs Frank was merely standing on the sidewalk, waiting to cross the road? What is the result here? We now know that there is an actual contradiction between the two accounts of Witness A and Witness B. Yet - the texts of their statements are able to be perfectly harmonized.

I am sure I have no idea what you mean by 6 cock crows, but I will leave that to your own imagination and instead address the lack of harmony in your scenario. One who reads the Word by the Spirit would not consider this harmony what you suggest in bouncing off the street. A Christian is more discerning. We would conclude the harmony can only be fulfilled by accepting the fact that the police offer is too trusting, in which one of the persons told a fib. This would be reality.

What you are trying to do in your flesh is bellittle the Word, but note you make no such claim of comparison to your analogy, but just presume with your 6 crows, which you do not explain. Don't be coy and hold in this to yourself because it is right there where you are attempting to be coy we find the culprit at work in your misreasoning.



What does this example teach us? Although one may harmonize two texts, this does not disprove a contradiction between the texts.

What we have learned is that to one with a conscience that is dead and a mind unrenewed and unthinking, what such a person deemed harmonious is not the case at all. The harmony thus itself, in this scenario you make up, disproves the possibility of no contradiction between person A and person B. One of them certainly is a false witness based on your reasoning of bouncing people since it is absurd that the meaning given by person A would indicate bouncing human beings, lol.

In this scenario there is however another possibility where person A only saw the man on the sidewalk, and did not see that person go up to the building. Perhaps person A could have been having lunch, looked away, and 5 minutes later, turned to see the person dead on the street. It is true from the perspective of person A in assuming the person went from the sidewalk to the street rather than from the building to the street. Jorgen, in your dullardry, you do not see the possibility of this harmony. All you see is the absurd and ridiculous because it is a reflection of you as a person who is belligerent and obstinate which its itself absurd and ridiculous. Your thinking is what the Bible considers an unrenewed mind; it is flawed and passive.

Obviously you can see the need to ban you, since this conversation is dumb as shown why.


What should Mr Plod have done? Let's say both Witnesses also died after making the statements, and there were no other witnesses (this puts us in much the same position as reading the Gospels). Mr Plod should have:
1. worked out what each person was intending to say.
2. concluded, in this case, that it was clear that Witness A was intending to narrate a quite different account from Witness B. While Witness A was narrating an 'accident', Witness B was narrating an intentional 'suicide'.
3. decided whether Witness A was correct, or Witness B, or neither.

This does not place us in the same position of the Gospels of the apostles being murdered for their faith in Christ. The Scriptures are written over 1500 years in harmony among 40 writers. Two people in one scenario who die within an hour's time is nothing like 1500 years. Your thoughts do not harmonize with reality.

Yes, the police officer should have not been so overassuming, not unlike yourself for this speaks of lack of humility and inordinate pride in conduct and thought.


Each of these steps are essental. First of all, we must interpret each Biblical text in an alleged contradiction in its own right. We must seek out the intended meaning of each of its authors. If we leap straight to the step of 'harmonizing' the two texts without first working out what the best meaning of each text is, then we disrespect the individual texts, and inevitably produce an interpretation that has not taken into account the intended meaning of the authors.
To harmonize is not mutually exclusive of seeking the best meaning of each text, but it is part and parcel, for the active of discerning the truth is itself harmonious in the way of going about studying the Word. Disrespecting the text would include making uncomparable bouncing human being corrupted analogies.



And, the result of establishing the intended meaning within each text, the results naturally follow:
1. If the best meanings of each text result in a contradiction, we conclude the texts are contradictory.

Given what you claim of bouncing human beings, lol, they are contradictory, but given the possibility of the person A looking away for 5 or 10 minutes they are not contradictory.



2. If the best meanings of each text result in no contradiction, we conclude the texts are not contradictory.

There is no contradiction in the two possibilities I give you: 1) one person lied, or 2) person A looked away for 5 to 10 minutes. However, the officer could easily discern which case it was, by asking specific questions to person A like, "did you see the person walk onto the street or did you look away for 5 or 10 minutes?". If person A answers they actually saw the person walk on the street, then the only possiblity is that either person A or person B is not telling the truth. An examination of the autopsy would indicate which person is telling the truth. Ergo, problem solved.


3. If the best meanings of each text results in the likelihood of contradiction being about as likely as not (i.e. 50:50), we conclude the texts are not contradictory.
I think you are thinking too much attempting mental gymastics to refuse Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. A person who is not attuned to his own spirit will live in his brain.

The Scriptures give the benefit of the doubt to the Holy Spirit for the Holy Spirit is God, and Jesus is God and the Father is God. If all findings have a scenario that allow for God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit to be without error, then we have no reason to suggest otherwise and especially not from petty arguments from the petty self with bouncing people and assuming a 50:50 likely scenario. Since there is no possibility in which you were not created, that 50:50 turns into 100:0 that person A or person B is lying or delusional in their statements given the autopsy, similar to the work of the Holy Spirit...

"For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb. 4.12).


4. If the best meanings of each text result in insufficient evidence to determine whether there is a contradiction, we conclude the texts are not contradictory.
We certainly can not conclude there is a contradiction.


If you first try to seek a harmonization, rather than the best meaning, you will inevitably miss the best and proper interpretation of scripture on many occasions. A poor hermeneutic leads the inerrantist to misinterpret the nativity accounts.
As said before, seeking the best meaning is a seeking of a harmonization. Your mistaken assumption is that they are mutually exclusive. This is your fleshly assumption. Your own poor hermeneutic leads to your false conclusion, which misses the best and proper interpretation which harmonizes. Those inerrantists you speak of have authority over you for standing on the ground of truth: harmony and best meaning go together and do not define them as you do being mutually exclusive. How nonsensical!


This conclusion wrongly presupposes that the Holy Spirit was concerned that every detail in scripture was in harmony with every other part. But this is arguably not true, and therefore the conclusion is faulty.
Like I said, your mutually exclusive theory being wrong, leads to a false effect. From your being made in the image of God will a free-will to come to the cross to your choice to remain a sinner and have a relationship with the evil spirit in your spirit to your unrewnewed thinking and mistaken assumptions of mutual exclusivity is your choice God gives you to be nonsensical reviling your creator. No one is forcing your to be a bad person. Arguability from your selfish self-center is all you have in a spirit of dissension which renders you hellbound. Therefore, your conclusion is at fault. Your thoughts are that of a dullard overassuming.


New Testament scholar Raymond Brown explains that scripture is only in 'harmony' to the extent that it conveys the message of salvation that the Holy Spirit wishes to convey via humans. All the other little details, insofar as they do not affect the doctrine of scripture, need not be in harmony, because the Holy Spirit does not will it to be in harmony:
Self-declarations such as this are of no account. So then what is the truth of this mistaken assumption by the unregenerate Brown? All Scripture is pertinent for all has value for our spirit in harmony as God wills; it is the fullness of Jesus Christ the Word. It fills us up by the Spirit to understand God's working in creation as well as plans for the new city and all the most minute details in between which is spiritual food for our souls and spirits. If you can find one flaw in the 66 books of the Bible, then you destroy the whole Scriptural proof including the doctrine of salvation, since what flows from that doctrine also produced all the minute details as well in agreement. 6 is the number of Satan and it is the number of man because man loves Satan's ways with flawed reasoning and overassuming as do you exhibit Jorgen, as a pawn. God's redemptive design is breaking apart this marriage of man and Satan till one day Satan will be cast into hell as well with you.


“The Books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.”
It has accomplished this. Praise the Lord!



“Everything in Scripture is inerrant to the extent to which it conforms to the salvific purpose of God.”

It has and does. One word more would be too much; one word less would be too little. See Rev. 22.18,19.


Although you agree with most of the evidence which I produced to show that Joseph and Mary settled in Nazareth (3 out of 4 of the above), it is interesting that you rejected my conclusion.
Your conclusion is rejected because your conclusions stem from false premises such as mutual exclusivity between the best scenario and harmony and bouncing people assumptions without considering other possibilities.

I do not think I agree with anything you say, not 2 or 3 or 1 out of 4 whatever that means, since you do not apply it specifically. God deals in specifics, not general statements of naming numbers, then not providing application. You don't even say which numbers you are speaking of: perhaps 1,3,4 or 1,2,3 or 2,3,4. Who can address such a silly attempt by yourself? I certainly won't, since you don't even have the courtesy to be specific in your application of your numbering system to the issue of Nazareth and Bethlehem. Do you see how dull-minded you are on and vague?


The reason does not lie in the evidence itself, but in the methodology you apply to the evidence which, as I explained above in my discussion on hermeneutics, is faulty.
As shown above by my response we see your allegation is false and your reason is faulty. Your methodoly is faulty in your demanding mutual exclusivity as well, you misuse the evidence to generation to produce false premises leading to false conclusions.



Applying your methodology, even a very improbable interpretation would be grounds for dismissing a highly probable interpretation - on the sole criterion that the very improbable interpretation provided a harmony, while the highly probable interpretation did not. This cannot be right! Until you adopt a interpretational methodology that is not susceptible to this result, how can any of your results in the discussion of the nativity be trusted? The only answer is: they cannot. I trust that helps.

Since the conclusion we discover to be harmonious and the most probable, there is no problem. The methodogy employed in reading the Scriptures is to give the benefit of the doubt to the Scriptures since we know we were created and that God had to have created us (see 4 Step Perfect Proof for God, for example). Therefore, if there is a possibility of harmony, which implies the most likely scenario, then this is the answer. Since God is holy, righteous and true, this makes sense.

Self-declarations don't count. Nothing I have said, nor the Scriptures, would indicate to you a very improbably interpretation to begin with. On the contrary, your bouncing human beings theory is most improbable, so you are not abiding in your own principle. The nativity scene you could also find no fault with in going to Egypt and returning in the two accounts of Matthew and Luke (which has been fully responded to in my previous post which you can read when you are ready). Therefore, this is grounds for dismissing your idea.

The highly probable interpretation by definition indicates harmony and harmony agrees with the highly probable as being the answer, whereas your improbable of bouncing human beings is most disharmonious with reality. This therefore, provides no adequate comparsion to the Scriptures.

In conclusion what we find is your methodology is susceptible to your result because of your reviling independency from God which produces your flawed thinking, mistaken overassuming, and self-declaring from the pit of your corrupted self.

I hope this helps you as I know it will if you hath an ear to hear. Just as a warning though, I most likely will be banning you in the next post, since talking to you, in your unclear thoughts, is of no value for the purposes of this forum, and you sound like you will never have a change of mind (repent), leaving you bound for hell to be eternally separted from God. Your choice.

[Churchwork]

On second thought Jorgen, since this is such a dull and lame conversation, you are a banned. This is a spiritual forum to fellowship according to Biblical locality and discuss deeply the Word, not to hear lame arguments from those who despise the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Garotte]

The Holy Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, are the
inspired Word of God and are therefore without error in the original writings.
We further believe that this inspiration is not in different degrees, but extends equally and fully to all parts of the Bible: historical, poetical, doctrinal and prophetical. We, therefore, believe in the absolute authority of the Bible in all matters of faith and practice.


How often did our Lord Jesus Christ utter the words, "It is written". Can we do no less for the Word.


II Timothy 3:16, 17;




II Peter 1:21.