Question for Rat, potato, and other X-Xtians

[Thurnez Isa]

LMNO you seem to be talking about Christian apologetics.. check http://www.carm.org
I've only recently got interested in such things myself
So far I've seen a few constant arguments, as well as these arguments explained by people looking at this stuff longer then I have.
1. There's the "It's a metaphor.." argument
which is fine by me. Just don't claim it's not when you come to things such as bats are birds, or the earth was created in 6 days, ect.
2. The "it used to say..." argument
Fine. But there is no way to say it used to say, and if your going to take out all the stuff that there is no evidence it was there to begin with that is a lot of the bible. 90 percent of the time people are just adding complete bullshit to it to have their sacred text make sense.
3. There's everyone's favorite.. "it's a miracle," or just "God did it like that"
Then again don't expect everyone to believe such nonsense.
4. There's the "You have to understand it in context..." argument
which is fine... if they are talking about historical context sure but see response to argument 1, plus does nothing to explain contradictions
5. There's the "it's just an error" argument
Obviously and error from the word of God
6. There is the "God works in mysterious ways..." argument
why yes... yes he does
7. There is the... well trying basically forcing it into a chronological order that makes sense. Why you have to force it say volumes.

Sometimes a molding of these arguments can make a little sense at first glance
like this explanation of why there is two conflicting genealogies of Jesus
http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/why-are-there-different-genealogies-jesus-matthew-1-and-luke-3
which at first makes sense
till you actually take they're suggestion of putting it in historical context and then go back to the text and you see the explanation actually very little sense, unless the two writers where in cohorts with each other

heres a list of explanations... though ironically i don't recall them talking about the birth
http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark
http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/luke-john-and-acts
read them... then go back to the texts and you will see what i mean...
its total nonsense
which is why I earlier mentioned I wonder if some religions is more about believing in the bullshit made to keep their text's coherent then the actual teachings of the text

[Thurnez Isa]

Literalism tends to use number 7

Fundamentalism (there seems to be a difference between the two - this short video by John Dominic Crossan explains the difference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f0ZHaoSnf0&feature=channel_page) doesn`t even seem to bother... Kind of like an "Im just right" argument

[Honey]

Catholics also have their very own version of the Bible.  

I think most of it comes down to apologetics & sophistry.  

I also think people are still enthralled by the bloody parts, the bloodier the better.

[LMNO]

Yeah, I was hoping it would be more clever than the "I adjust the parameters here, but I'll leave them alone there" gambit; if you have to cahnge the rules in one place, you have to change them everywhere else, unless you have a really good reason not to, in which case you're changing the entire rules of the game.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

See, that's why I was trying to figure out what theologians and absolutist literalists think.

Rat was pretty clear that his branch of the JWs dismissed the discrepancy in a fairly modern way, by saying "the facts weren't the same in each book because one was meant as a difinitive history, and the other was meant to lure the gentiles."  But doesn't that call in to question the rest of Matthew, and whether is can be considered "accurate" or "beguiling"?

I'm not sure I was clear if it came across like that... neither is considered 'lure', 'beguiling' or 'inaccurate'. They are seen as complementary accounts. The first being a letter from one of Jesus' disciples about what he was taught... thus a focus on the message and words of Jesus... Luke, on the other hand, never knew Jesus personally and was writing based on interviews and research (and inspired by God). Thus both are accurate and true and inspired... they just have slightly different areas of focus.

[Sheered Völva]

So anyway, I know a few of you are ex-"hardcore" Christian literalists; y'all would have some insight into the ways of church reasoning.  The reason I bring all this up is because of a few points in The God Delusion I read last night, and I'd like to hear how a devoted person would respond.

NOTE:  This is not necessarily a Xtian-bashing thread, or at least it is not intended to be.  I am honestly interested in the ways SRS Xtians handle these issues.

Essentially, it's about the birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, and how the two just don't line up with each other regarding the circumstances of how they got to Bethlehem, and how the lineages documented in each gospel differ widely.

I know, these are trivial points, and not crucial to Christ's "let's be nice to each other" message, but I was just interested how a literalist would handle something like that.

Again, this is pure curiosity, and not yet another LOL XTIAN thread.

As some have already mentioned, different Christian groups are radically different in their approaches to interpreting the Bible. But you asked about a literalist ("everything in the Bible is true") so I'll throw my observation in the stew.

The book of Matthew was apparently written to Jews, and the book of Luke written to Gentiles.  These are the only two Biblical books that tell details about the birth of Jesus.

Luke focuses on the more mundane nature of Jesus, and tells how shepherds came to see him lying in a manger very shortly after his birth.  Matthew tells the story of the wise men/astrologers (yes, astrologers--then astronomers and astrologers were the same thing. the Bible states in Genesis 1:14 that part of the purpose of the sun, moon and stars was for signs) who visited Jesus when he was about two years old.

But as for contradictions, one of the often missed contradictions is in the beginning of Matthew. Isaac Asimov ponts it out in Asimov's Guild to the Bible.

Matthew 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

Matthew lists all these generations. But the problem is, one of the three sections only lists 13 generations! Asimov thinks it was probably an error in editing somewhere a few hundred or so years ago. But a literalist wouldn't accept that--as God guided the writing and translating of the Bible, it (especially the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Version) has to be true.

So you get to Thurnez Isa's list of explanations...

[LMNO]

But one also has Mary and Joseph permanent residents of Bethlahem, and the other has them as living in Galille, and just visiting.  Those detail most certainly conflict, and don't resolve just because of the intended audience.

[Thurnez Isa]

they also went to Egypt, unless you believe the other Gospel in which they reside peacefully in Nazareth

[Kai]

Catholics, for certain, have taken an interesting dodge around the issue.  Instead of the Bible, they put their faith in the Pope, who interprets the bible for them, as the Holy Nextel Pager of God.  So instead of what the bible says, they listen to what the Pope says.  Which is nice, for them.

I don't know, when I was catholic I never really "put my faith" in the pope. Catholics aren't exactly biblical literalists either; was perfectly fine to see evolution as true, in fact we talked about it in the classes. The reason that Mathew and Mark were different is because they were written for different groups of people, from different perspectives, or thats the answer I got. The way the stories were told matched the cultural context they were being delivered to.

[fomenter]

i wish i had more to offer this thread, but i haven't heard of any good direct explanation for the inconsistencies by literalists to share with you, i posted a question in another thread asking if any one had watched this

any pd'rs listen to pastor Melissa Scott?
i get a kick out of the language translation analysis of scripture she does,  i don't know what kind of christian she is but her bible study show is interesting.

http://www.pastormelissascott.com/whoIsPastor.html

http://www.pastormelissascott.com/lcVideos.html video clips

i don't think she has ever tackled the question being asked, but she is a linguist who is fluent in 15 or more languages her thing is reading the modern bible and comparing it to the earlier versions in different languages and giving explanations of what the bible is trying to say based on the translation of the words.

it is the only religious TV with the ability to suck me into watching, there is something fascinating about what she does

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

But one also has Mary and Joseph permanent residents of Bethlahem, and the other has them as living in Galilee, and just visiting.  Those detail most certainly conflict, and don't resolve just because of the intended audience.

I think (digging through memory here), that Mary lived in Nazareth in the area of Galilee.  Joseph, however was originally from the town Bethlehem, but he apparently had moved into Nazereth at some point, either when he got engaged or before. When the census was announced, the Jews had to travel to the city of their birth, in order to register with the census. Thus, they traveled to Bethlehem to register and just happened to pop out a kid while they were there (this was necessary since the Messiah had to come from Bethlehem).

At some not well defined point after these events, the Astrologers/Wise Men etc came to Jesus. This was not (as the songs and plastic donkeys would have you believe) in the manger. They found Jesus in a house.

After they left, the angel of God appears to Joseph and tells him that they must go to Egypt because Herod is about to kill every baby under the age of two (to wipe out the competition for the throne). This 'age of two' indicates strongly that an extensive amount of time had passed between when Herod and the Magi think Jesus was born and this point in time.

After Herod dies, Joseph and Mary return to Mary's hometown 'Nazareth' in Galilee.

Note Matthew:

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod;

an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt;

After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt 20and said, "Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel;

So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. 22But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth.

Luke:

So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.;

On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him.... When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.

Then it skips on to his older years.


Again, it all depends on how you choose to read the text. These accounts do not necessarily conflict. Of course, depending on how you read them they may conflict entirely.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Also, the reason Matthew was so specific, was that all of this moving about fulfilled prophecy. Prophecy said the Messiah would come from Bethlehem, Nazareth and Egypt.

When God sets your path, pray he's a AAA member.

[Sheered Völva]

Matthew, writing to the Jews, tried to link Jesus (who gave the New Testament law) to the Jews-accepted Moses (who gave the Old Testament Law).  I've listed just a few of these links.

Matthew 2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

Pharoah (Moses' time as an infant) sought to destroy all the young boys.
Herod (Jesus' time as an infant) sought to destroy all the young boys.

Moses was hidden and kept safe in Egypt.
Jesus was hidden and kept safely in Egypt.

Moses, through adoption (the pharoahs), was recognized as part of the royal line (pharoahs were rulers of Egypt).
Jesus, through adoption (Joseph), was recognized as part of the royal line (David, ancestor of Joseph, was the ruler of Israel).

Moses went alone on Mount Sinai for 40 days and 40 nights. When he returned, he brought a new law for God's people.
Jesus went alone into the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights. When he returned, he brought a new law for God's people.

Moses led his followers based on a promise that would only happen right after his death (entering the promised land of Israel).
Jesus led his followers based on a promise that would only happen right after his death (entering the promised land of Heaven).

Moses died, but God made sure his body cannot be found. (It purposely wasn't recorded where he was buried).
Jesus died, but God made sure his body cannot be found. (He rose from the dead).

[Thurnez Isa]

According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great
According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria
Herod died 4 bc and the Quirinius' census took place 7 ad and had no connection with Herod
Luke has Mary and Joseph traveling from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea
Matthew says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth after fleeing to Egypt
Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census - that absurd. The Romans would never have forced people to their place of birth. It would have been a bureaucratic nightmare

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great
According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria
Herod died 4 bc and the Quirinius was governor around 7 ad
Luke has Mary and Joseph traveling from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea
Matthew says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth after fleeing to Egypt
Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census - that absurd never happened or will. It would have been a bureaucratic nightmare

These are almost all valid critisims. However, Matthew is entirely silent on where Joseph and Mary lived before or after Jesus' birth. Only that he was born in Bethlehem and later went to Egypt, then decided to go home to Judea, had a bad dream and went instead to Nazareth. That would make sense if Nazareth was Mary's hometown as Luke states.