How many Christians read the Bible (and other things) carefully?

Question

I asked the following and got answers that hadn't read the question or the Bible carefully:

According to Matthew's Gospel, before the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC, Jesus was born in Bethlehem. When the wise men show up, they're living in a house (Matt. 2:11). After fleeing to Egypt, they try to return to Judea (Matt. 2:21-22). So the family was from Bethlehem in Matthew.

In Luke's Gospel, on the other hand, the family is clearly from Nazareth. They only go up to Bethlehem for the census under Quirinius, which took place in 6 AD - it was connected with the institution of direct Roman rule when Herod's son was deposed, so it clearly happened after the death of Herod the Great. From Bethlehem they go up to Jerusalem, & once they had done everything required by the Law (Lev. 12 says this took only a little more than a month) they returned to Nazareth. Isn't it clear that these two stories cannot both be historically factual? http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/jesus/quirinius.htm

Answer 1

I would agree that, more than likely, the majority of Christians sit in the pew and listen to the same sermon each and every Sunday not thinking (or listening for that matter). However, we still can't lump them all into one big category. There are thinking Christians (and lots of others) out there. The stories you listed are examples of two different accounts from two different perspectives. True, they cannot both be accurate. I did hear it said one time that the fact that there are contradictions in the accounts of Jesus' life, death, birth, etc. means that they didn't sit around and make sure they had all their lies lined up before they wrote it down.
The Gospels (Good News is a better translation) are best looked at as what the community of "believers" were thinking, feeling and hearing at around the latter quarter of the first century.
So, basically you are right in most of your points. But be leery of the ones who hold wisdom in their faith. They are the ones that know that the text itself is only a vessel in which to try and find god. And while there are many vessels, the only way to find truth (if it exist at all) is to search. And if truth (or God, which also may or may not exist) isn't found in the searching, the search in itself with hopefully bear fruit none-the-less.
Good question.

Answer 2

All right: In Matthew, the wise men probably got to Bethlehem weeks after Jesus was born. And the reason that Mary and Joseph had so stay in a stable was because they had to go there to pay taxes, along with thousands of other people. So, there wasn't a whole lot of room at the inns. But after a while, people started to leave and the inns started to empty out. So they could eventuall get a room, because who likes sleeping with animals.

In Luke, they're in Bethlehem for 41 days, and then they have to go to Jerusalem to offer a sacrifice for their son (see Exodus and Leviticus). After offering the sacrifice, Joseph goes down and lives in Egypt.

You see, one story has some details while leaving other details out, and the same with the other one. The thing we have to do is to connect them. Isaiah 28:10 "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little..." We cannot determine absolute truth from one single verse, or one chapter, or even one book. We have to take what the Bible says on an entire subject and then put all the peices together to see what the Bible is really saying. And I can't believe that you criticize others for not reading their Bibles. You not only do not read carefully, you wrest the scriptures to find things that supposedly contradict. You are the hypocrite here.

Answer 3

Well, the first thought that popped into my mind was, I was born in St. Louis, and I lived there off and on most of my life. But that is a lie, because I never actually lived in St. Louis city, and only lived in St. Louis county for about seven or eight years. The rest of that time I lived in outlying communties, except when for the years I was in the military. At various times I lived in Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, and I'll soon be moving to Alaska. Confused? Considering we are talking about two towns not much more than a day's horseback ride away, I can see why you are confused about it, too. As for when he was born, the census was taken pretty often. It was used to compute taxes, and you don't take one census and say 'good thing we never have to do that again' where a lot of money like that is involved. Besides, the wise men took two years to reach the holy land (which is why Herod called for the killing of every child under two).

Answer 4

Nope, nope. Joseph took his family to Bethlehem to be counted for a census. That is why Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Unlike most nativity scenes, the three kings did not show up the night Jesus was born. That is why the bible describes them coming to the "house"...it was awhile later.

Jesus grew up in Nazareth, hence the verse about Him in later years, "can anything good come out of Nazareth?"

Answer 5

You have this all wrong.
Jesus and his family was from Nazareth. They went to Bethlehem for the census.
The wise men came to their house when Jesus was a toddler not when he was a baby. Some say around 2.
I have studied the bible for over 20 years.
†

Answer 6

Zero,Zip,Nadda...anyone who reads the Bible and studies it and doesn't rely on Bible Study courses and Sermons "to explain what they just read" will become Agnostic or Athiest because it is obvious the Bible is not true...look at the Geneology from Adam the birth of Yashua..4000 years?The earth and mankind have been around longer than 6k yrs...flood story doesnt add up to reality either...your comparisons of the Christmas Story are awsome!!!
Of course I believe some brainwashed people will quote Old Testamant (thankfully I can remeber the Book anymore and don't want to) about ...oh never mind if they do they do ,if they don't I'll be happier,but yuo gave me more to ease my mind....

Answer 7

dont read with blind eyes..please.
please read with an open heart...
wisdom is supreme,therefore get wisdom.
the fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom.
gleen all the words with the holy spirit.
yes there is an error in luke from a historic view.you should also realize that the text is very old and some dates are a little off.does that mean that we should discount the gospel of luke.
i wonder if you would like god to pick out all your imperfections with the same negative intensity?

Answer 8

My my I see you can read but lack knowledge. Seriously part of the story is in Matthew and part is in Luke. A good Bible commentary would help you sort out the differences and the reason why the differences in the stories. Do a little more research once you like to read.

Answer 9

ok this is all coming from Wikipedia.

Alternative Translation of Luke
In 1938, F.M. Heichelheim, based on the Greek grammar of Luke, argued that the ‘original meaning’ of Luke 2:2 was properly rendered as “This census was the first before (=πρώτη) that under the prefectureship of Quirinius in Syria”, stating that this alternate translation would resolve “all difficulties”.[27] This translation relies on the fact that the Greek word protos, usually translated first, can also mean "before" or "former" when it is followed by the genitive case. Under this interpretation, Luke intends to place the events around the birth of Jesus before Quirinius's governorship and census in A.D. 6.[28] This position has been followed by several other scholars.[29] This would resolve the difficulty of locating Quirinius amongst the governors of Herod's day, though of course it does not address the plausibility of a census under Herod.

Quirinius governing twice
To reconcile Luke and Josephus, some have speculated that Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, or at least "governing" (hêgemoneuontos, a term that, besides describing a governor, could refer to other promagistri or quaestores)[35] in the area at an earlier date, and that he conducted two censuses—one in 4 B.C., referenced by Luke; and the other around A.D. 6, referenced by Josephus.

Governors according to Josephus Date Governor
23 - 13 B.C. Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa
c. 10 B.C. M. Titus
9 - 6 B.C. S. Sentius Saturninus
6 - 4 B.C. or later Publius Quinctilius Varus
4 B.C. - 1 B.C. Unknown
1 B.C. - A.D. 4 Gaius Julius Caesar
A.D. 4 - 5 Lucius Volusius Saturninus
A.D. 6 - after 7 Publius Sulpicius Quirinius

For Quirinius to have been governing twice, both during his undisputed governorship in A.D. 6 and during a previous governing, then his earlier tenure would have to be either before M. Titus (before 10 B.C.), or between Varus and Gaius (4 - 1 B.C.), both possibilities being reconcilable with Luke’s information.[36] According to Josephus, Varus led a force against a revolt in Judea after Herod's death. If this statement is accepted, then an earlier governing of Quirinius after S. Saturninus would not be during the reign of Herod — hence this reconstruction would entail Elizabeth’s conception (under Herod and Varus) followed by the birth of Jesus, presumably approximately 15 months later (under the hypothetical governing of Quirinius). It should be noted that the above list of governors is derived from Josephus, and some scholars have disputed his information; thus, T. Corbishley dated the legateship of M. Titus before 12 B.C., placing a previous governing of Quirinius after Titus and before S. Saturninus.[37]

Theodor Mommsen was the first to argue that a damaged inscription, known as the Lapis Tiburtinus,[38] might provide evidence of an earlier governorship of Quirinius, which Mommsen placed after that of Varus, around 3 B.C.[39] Yet the inscription does not mention Quirinius, and in 1931 Groag attacked this interpretation. He argued that the stone merely refers to someone who held a legateship for the second time in the province of Syria, but does not specify that the earlier legateship was also in Syria.[40] Ronald Syme, following Groag's reasoning, argued that "whether or not the man [referenced by the Tiburtine inscription] was Quirinius—and it could still perhaps be maintained that he was—there is no reason for believing that he was twice governor of Syria."[41] Syme thought L. Calpurnius Piso was the more likely candidate for the inscription, while Groag argued that it referenced M. Plautius Silvanus.[42]

The hypothesis that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria, supported by the evidence of Luke and the Tiburtine inscription, was the standard scholarly position until Syme advanced his arguments in 1934. It was thought that Quirinius conducted the Homonadensian war from Syria, and that this war took place between 3 and 2 B.C.[43] Yet Syme argued that the Homonadensian campaign may be better dated to 6 B.C., and that Quirinius conducted it as governor of Galatia, rather than as governor of Syria.[44] Today, most scholars follow Syme and hold that Quirinius was governor in Galatia from before 6 B.C. until just before A.D. 2, and that this precludes the possibility that he was governor in Syria during this period.[45] They hold this position, in part, for reasons of historical precedent. As J.G.C. Anderson observed, "A second tenure of Syria or indeed any other consular province under one and the same emperor by a senator who was not a member of the imperial house [i.e., Quirinius] is unparalleled."[46]

Answer 10

Like Chuck reported, "do no longer think of approximately it." examining the Hebrew and Christian bibles heavily is what made me see i became easily Jewish and did no longer have faith that Jesus must be the messiah, and with the help of no potential God. Christians could have so lots extra credibility in the event that they bumped off all references to the Hebrew bible (old testomony) from their faith.