Let's have a good old fashioned bible discussion. I'll start...

@cyntrow (8527)
United States
April 22, 2008 1:52pm CST
Please be advised, this is not an attempt to upset anyone. It's just an observation. I've noticed a great number of people tell me that if I don't believe all of the bible then I must believe none of it. I've also had more than a few people tell me that something that I have told them regarding my feeling on scripture has brought a new clarity to the verse in question. It brings to mind the bible discussions that went on in my house when I was growing up. Man, some of those debates got pretty hot, but there was never any disrespect or hostility. Just discussion; different people throwing out different ideas until an understanding (not necessarily a concensus) was reached. It was fun and informative. So, I want to throw in a discussion about the contradictions in the bible. There are many that I could site, but I will name only one. The question is, Where did Mary, Joseph and Jesus go after the birth? Matthew 2:14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt Luke 2:39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth I welcome all thoughts. I welcome debate, as long as it's civil. The question is, why the contradiction? Is it a matter of historical perspective? And if something so simplistic could be misread or miswritten, how could the entire book NOT be open to speculation. Let the discussion begin. The next one is up to someone else.
8 people like this
16 responses
• United States
22 Apr 08
There are two sections of the Judo-Christian Bible.I. being Jewish only follow the Old Testament. So I am just following part of it so why can't Christians do the same?
2 people like this
@cyntrow (8527)
• United States
25 Apr 08
Actually, I know a number of Christians who only follow the OT. They know very little about what Jesus taught. I have always viewed the bible as more of a historical record of things. And I am sceptical about many of the translations. But the fact remains that there are many contradictions. Common sense and a grain of salt are necessary
• United States
25 Apr 08
Those are the two ingredients that are not mixed with American's observance of their religion.
@cyntrow (8527)
• United States
30 Apr 08
I wish I could disagree with you. I don't
1 person likes this
• United States
23 Apr 08
There is no contradiction here. Luke just didn't go into detail in regards to certain things. All of the gospel writers differ in what they write. They each write "ACCORDING" to their own personal styles and ways. If they wrote every single thing identically- then we would have only needed one of the versions. All else would just be exact duplicates. The bible clearly states that they went into Egypt (Matt 2:13-14). This ALSO in turn fulfilled a prophecy (Matt 2:15; Hosea 11:1). Afterwards, at some point in time, they do return to Israel, specifically Nazareth and this is where Luke picks up (Matt 2:23; Luke 2:39). No contradictions here.
@cyntrow (8527)
• United States
29 Apr 08
that is a great reply starflames. But in Luke states that after the Family had "done the lord's work, they returned to nazareth." Now, in Hebrew tradtion, after a woman gives birth, she is unclean for a period of ten days. This could be the time period in which the family "did the lord's work". Could Matthew have fabricated the story slightly in order to help fulfill the prophesy? Just a thought.
@cyntrow (8527)
• United States
30 Apr 08
How do you know? WHat makes you beleive this? I welcome youre reply. I've always FELT in my heart that the left hand didn't know what the right hand did. And that is MY feeling. I don't expecct any other to feel as I feel. I welcome all replies.
• United States
30 Apr 08
Know- or believe what? About Matthew NOT fabricating the story.... or something else? Can you be a little more specific... Thanks...
1 person likes this
@emeraldisle (13158)
• United States
22 Apr 08
Oh I love a good bible discussion There are a few possible answers as to why the contradiction. The first being the fact that neither author was there when Jesus was born and of course during his early life. It could be a simple thing of one being told one aspect and the other being told a different one. For example Mary could have told Matthew that after the birth they went into Egypt while when she talked with Luke he may have been more interested in the fact that Jesus was circumcised and had followed the laws. Luke may have assumed they went back to Galilee without asking where as Matthew had asked about where they went to. It could also be that the original works were edited in order to make sure that certain prophecies were met. In this case the one that stated "I have called my Son from Egypt" This could have been edited by the actual authors or those who later put the bible together. Also we have to remember that the bible that we have is a translation. No one can really say what the original works really said. Then add to it the bible was copied by hand for centuries until the printing press was invented. Who knows how many pieces might have been lost or copied incorrectly during this process. Of course it could be a combination of all of the above. A lost piece there, a messed up translation, assumption by others all combined in the work we have today.
@cyntrow (8527)
• United States
29 Apr 08
So could it be possible that one of the Gospels was a fabrication to ensure prophesy?? jsut a thought.
1 person likes this
@cyntrow (8527)
• United States
29 Apr 08
OOppps. Sorry, hit submit intstead of preview. My next thought: And if this is the case, can we place the bible as a work of fact based fiction?
1 person likes this
@emeraldisle (13158)
• United States
29 Apr 08
It could be quite possible or perhaps "creatively edited" in order to serve the needs they wanted. I think if we could find the original manuscripts then it might more accurate. However since this is not the case and one thinks about how it has been transcribed, translated, and reviewed over the years I think the copy we have now would have to be considered as maybe historical fiction? Not the exact fact but not complete fiction.
• Philippines
23 Apr 08
It clearly said they went to Egypt. I guess we don't have everything in the scriptures not all the peoples move in there were written so they just put something in it to continue the story. When I was young I read the bible. As I grew up I had questions on my belief in it. Anyways, if it doesn't harm anyone then it is good.
@cyntrow (8527)
• United States
29 Apr 08
Matthew says they went to egypt. Luke says they went to Nazareth. THere is nothing clear about it. If you cannot see the contradiction, please elaborate.
@maykxlot (49)
• Philippines
23 Apr 08
I welcome this thread as mere observation and not to be turned out as a hot debate. What will I write in response to the question might already have been answered, nevertheless, here is my view. The answer is simple. Both story (in Matthew and in Luke) ended in Jesus going into "land of Israel." In the account of Luke, he just didn't go up in a detail about Herod's time, while in the account of Matthew, he did elaborate to point out the fulfillment of "Out of the Egypt, I called My Son." However, while Matthew did write about the family going to Egypt to flee from the wrath of Herod, notice that in verse 21 of the chapter 2 of Matthew, the family "came into the land of Israel" which is direct agreement with what Luke have written.
@cyntrow (8527)
• United States
29 Apr 08
Not necessarily. Luke states that when the family had finished, "the lord's work" they returned to galilee. In Hebrew tradition, after a child was born, the mother and child were isolated for 10 days until the mother reached a state of cleanliness. After that they could resume their lives. could it not be a matter of a scribe attempting to fullfill prophesy by reporting an incorrect place and time. No, I don't want arguement, but debate is fine. We can find great truth and undestanding in debating.
• United States
22 Apr 08
Great discussion Cyn, I have read all of the responses so far, and not sure I can add anything more to it. Emerald is so spot on about the the bible haveing been written by hand. The scribe would make a copy then pass his copy on to the next one to make copy and so on, can you imagine the mistakes made, and each scribe would have very levels of education, so the translations and interpretations often got so misconstrued that it does not even resemble the original writings. This is a fascinating subject even if you do not believe in the biblical gospels, to study. If you think about the levels of education of some scribes you would learn they really knew nothing more then just the ability to copy the letters. Some of them actually could not read what they copied. Then when we have such politically motivated people such as KING JAMES authorize the translation we of course get even more personal twisting for agends other than the human race at large.
1 person likes this
@cyntrow (8527)
• United States
29 Apr 08
There is also a great deal of historical evidence pointing the probability that the gospels were written hundreds of years after the life of Jesus. The only exception being the scribe, Thomas, who may have been Jesus' little brother. his writings were deemed heretic and set to be destroyed. THey were found.
@anniepa (26066)
• United States
22 Apr 08
That's a very blatant contradiction and not something that's left up to interpretation at all. I'm a bit embarrassed to say I haven't read the Bible for so many years and I never did read anywhere near all of it so I'm not as familiar with the scriptures as I should and could be. If you ever watch Bill Maher's show you've probably heard him - an admitted atheist - speak of the "talking snake" and saying how if you claim you believe the entire Bible literally you must believe in that and I think he makes an excellent point. Barack Obama brought up the fact that the six days as they're portrayed in the Bible may not be six 24 hour periods as we know a day to be but others insist it must mean just that. This is a great idea for a discussion, Cyn, and I'll be reading with interest to see what others come up with. Annie
1 person likes this
@cyntrow (8527)
• United States
30 Apr 08
thanks The bible has always been my greatest weapon for those who would seek to harm those I love. It's a double edged sword.
@sharon_ (1171)
• United States
23 Apr 08
I didn't even know that there was this contradiction concerning where Mary and Joseph went after Jesus' birth. I'm going to have to say Nazareth though.
1 person likes this
27 Apr 08
This "contradiction" is not hard to disspell. First off Luke is not an eyewitness to these things or even a desciple of Christ. He is merly retailing the stories of Christ in a narative. The returning to Galalee is infact true although it is not cronological. Ofcourse after fleeing to Egypt, Mariam Yoseph, and Yahsua returned to Yoseph's home town of Galalee. Further more the time period of presenting the child in the temple and for cercumsision was eight days, So this was eight days after the birth of Christ, we are not told exacly when Joseph was told to flee to egypt, or how old the child was when yoseph was told to flea to Egypt as Herod said to kill al males two and under.
28 Apr 08
freethinking agent you make some excellent points but please improve your spelling-mine is pants to. why do you think that god wrote the bible "whats her name" when you say this do you mean the old testament, the new testament or all of the scriptures that the new testaments is based on? please clarify? can i make one thing clear to you whats her name, i am not here to offend you or hurt your feelings, religion is of great interest to me, especially as i battle with my own beliefs to what i actually believe. if i have offended you, i can assure you it was not my intention to do so
29 Apr 08
You did not offend me, It would be very hard to do so. The truth is my understanding of the bible is not orthadox, that is not in light of how madern religion translates some of the more delicate scriptures. I instead hold to the anciant understandings and the origenal meanings and translations of the words and phrases. It is very true that sometimes words have two meanings. Many would be very suprised if they had a literal translation of the bible, and were aware of some more anctiant scritures and books taken from the bible we have today. They ofcourse would answer many of the questions we have today, and again create more questions as well. The oragin of man, and other 'creations', LOL people have no idea what they are realy dealing with.
29 Apr 08
there are people out there that would blow our arguments straight out of the water, some of these religious scholars have dedicated decades to decoding the bible, i say decoding, i don't mean like that silly dan brown book, i mean like getting to the truth behind the bible, to do this they must be experts in history, ancient literature and be open to questioning thier belief systems,these people are few and far between.
@rhykos7 (74)
24 Apr 08
ok you Christians probably wont like this, but you cant pick and choose which parts of the bible you believe, if you don't believe all of it, the you are saying the rest is lies, imaginary or fiction, which obviously is disagreeing with its inauthenticity. i would say that if you don't whole heartedly believe in it then you are either an agnostic or an atheist. my oponion on the bible is irrelevant-this about your blief in it which i suggest you take some serious time and read it to decide whether or not you genuinely believe what you are reading?
• United States
25 Apr 08
It's not about picking and choosing which parts we believe, it's about contradictions or what seem like contradictions in the Bible. It's about discussing what we read in the Bible. Have you read it?
25 Apr 08
yes i have read the bible, believe it or not i was quite religious before i read the bible, but nowhere near as religious after i read it.
26 Apr 08
open mindedness will bring a greater things in life-the more you search for the truth the more interesting the world becomes. i will never say that there is no god, and i will not say that there is a god. but some peoples idea of a god is pretty ridiculous. ive said it before but if you take the old testament seriously then you are hugely deluded. the more you look into the origins of this universe, the stranger things become and the more lost your mind gets, but this is a fascinating subject for the origin of everything. it is possible that there is a higher power is this world, but is this the al knowing god-it certainly wouldn't be the god of the old testament. philosophy, astronomy and cosmology are far more mysterious and interesting than god. intelligent christians dont believe in most of what is in the bible-but isnt that what christianity is-the bible?
• United States
2 May 08
When you talk about the bible you have to thank about one thing, book are missing. Some books have been left out of the bible by the church as leaders have state that they have no need to be included in what we know now a the King James Version. The bible is incomplete. - Reverend James, FL USA -
• Philippines
2 May 08
If the Bible is incomplete, where should we/you must based our beliefs or doctrines in order to be save if it is incomplete? Would God allow this to happen to His Words, to be incomplete? How can we be save?
• United States
2 May 08
You are not saved by a book or a building or even a group of people. You are saved by what faith and faith alone. As far as the bible, if you watch Discovery channel, they have had many shows about the missing books or should I say the left out books. By the way, God would not stop man from changing the bible. If you remember your Sunday School, the first thing they told you is that God and the Devil do not have control over free will nor will they step in to take control over it. One last thing I have to state in this comment is that is that the bible is not the word of God, but the story of chritianity. The word of GOD is JESUS. When everything was created, JESUS was the word that God spoke. - Reverend James, FL. USA -
3 May 08
I know that this is what is being tought in moderen theolgy, that Jesus, (logos) was the word God spoke, but this is very simplistic. Jesus (Yeshua) is more than just a word spoken by god, but in the pre Christian era the Judaic "Two powers of heaven" were already excepted. We read that God had a co-creater as well in the old testament, The co-crator had sevral names, "wisdom" is one and he was also called the word before the Word was ever made flesh. Take the phrase "The word of the Lord came to me", or simular statments are made in the Old testament. The mistake in the readers mind is that the word is only heard. But when reading this statement it is not an voice that is heard, the word is a actualy a person or intaty that appears before them. The word of the Lord came to me as you will see is an actual presence thet they can SEE. See Gen 15: 1; Afterthese things THE WORD OF THE LORD CAME to Abram in a VISION. "Fear not Abram for I am your sheild; your reward shall be very great." 2 But Abram said " OH LORD GOD ( hebrew Adonai-YHVH) what will you give me, for I contenue childless, and the heir to my house is Eliezar of Damascus?" 3 And Abram said, "Behold you have given me no offspring. And a member of my household will be my hier". 4 And behold THE WORD OF THE LORD CAME TO HIM: "This man shall not be your hier; your very own son shall be your hier." 5 AND HE BROUGHT HIM OUTSIDE. "Look toward heaven, and number the strars, if you are able to number them." then HE said to him, "So shall your offspring be." and he believed the Lord (hebrew YHVH) and HE counted it to him as rightousness. This was not just an audiole voise, but HE (the Word) was seen by Abram, Abram also calls the Word YHVH. In verse 5 it it is clear that there is a person with Abram as HE (the Word) takes him outside. Now read John 8:58. He tells his antagonist that he had appeared to Abram. "Your Fater Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad." So if you see that the Word of the Lord that appeared to Abram in a vision Was identified as YHVH by Abram, And jesus was saying "that was me" then Jesus was realy telling everyone that HE was YHVH in visable form. Also you can read ISmauel 3 when the Word of the Lord Stood befor him. The Word of God was one of the ways Jesus/YHVH appeared to men befor is incarnation as the man/Christ Jesus. This is why John so infaticly called Jesus THE WORD. Jewish writers even befor the new testament knew that the Word was a phisical manifisation of YHVH. In Jesus time the Jews did not widely speak Greek, though they knew it, but Aramaic infact many had forgotten how to speak Hebrew. They rewrote the Torah into Aramaic known as Targums. The word fro "word" in Aramic is memra, Memra of the Lord. The memra shows up in the aramaic versions in jesus's day sometimes as a 'second God', It word mera was introduceed or used in verses when there appeared to be more than one YHVH, So the Jews in that day were reading a bible that had the WORD "Memra" as a diety figure in addition to the God of Isriel. For example Gen 19:24 Then the LORD (YHVH) rained down on Sodom and Gamorrah sulfer fire from the LORD (YHVH) out of heaven. YHVH is raing down fire from YHVH? Almost sounds like two YHVH's doesnt it? BUT... There is an invisable YHVH, God the Father who is spirit, the other is the visable YHVH who appears thrugh out the old testament like he did to Abram. So the second visable YHVH is God the Son. The Targum picked up on the strange wording of two YHVH's and solved the dilima by inserting the word Memra into these verses like Gen. The Targum renders Gen 19:24 like this, The Memra of the Lord rained down on Sodom and Gamorrah sulfer and fire from the Lord out of heaven. and in the previous vers with Abram the Targum renders "And Abram trusted in the Memra of the Lord, and it was counted to him as righousness" GEN 17:7 is also interesting where YHVH the lord is sealing his covanent with now Abraham, " And I (the Lord) will establish my covanent between my Memra and between you." I know I rambled on here but i just wanted to show that Christ was much more tha just the spoken word of God, He was the equil of God and co-creator with God as god the Father being the invisable Spirit and The Son being the visable Son of God in one person with God. Sorry about the long responce.
@Marie37 (63)
• United States
30 Apr 08
The Gospels are the testimony of four "witnesses". If you and I witness the same event and then are asked to give our account, we're going to tell different things. It doesn't mean our stories are not true, but that we both saw different things. Each Gospel has its own message to tell as well. There are stories in Matthew that aren't in Luke and in Mark that aren't in John. Because each Gospel is chosen to highlight a different aspect of Jesus' ministry. You might be surprised to know there were originally more than four Gospels. I believe these were chosen under the direction of the Holy Spirit for a reason. And the scriptures you chose, though they may appear on the surface to contradict, don't really. Luke simply doesn't mention that they went in to Egypt. It didn't say they DID NOT go into Egypt. However it does say this: "and when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee" How does that contradict anything? The Lord told them to go into Egypt; once they did that they returned to Galilee. My understanding of scripture is that when the Lord tells you to do something, it's the LAW. So, I see no contradiction here.
@cyntrow (8527)
• United States
30 Apr 08
I'm not saying that anyone was lying. I am saying that, PERHAPS, Just perhaps, they were not on the spot scribes. "The lord's work" would very amply apply to making a woman clean after birth. according to Hebrew tradition, women who have given birth are unclean until a time of at least 10 days, perhaps more. Once the female blood stops, she is able to resume her life. That is, hin Hebrew tradition, "God's work" for a couple who has just given birth. How do know that YOUR perception is the truth and John Doe's perception is not. How do you know he went to egypt right afte the birth and not to Nazareth?????
• United States
2 May 08
Regardless, Luke doesn't say they went DIRECTLY to Nazareth without any stopovers over detours. For example, you ask me where I went. I say, "I went to work." Okay, I went to work, but what I didn't tell you is that before that I went to the store, the post office and the dry cleaners. But as far as you know, I just went to work. Just because Luke doesn't include the fact that they went to Egypt doesn't mean Matthew is wrong. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
• United States
27 Apr 08
Now what was the question? Oh yeah, sorry I got a little sidetracked and forgot what the question was. I honestly don't know why this contradiction is here, or if it's even a contradiction. But I do trust the Lord, that He is wise enough to get His true message to us across time through the Bible, to all who are willing to learn. The message is simple enough for people like me, yet complex for those who are always looking for more answers.
27 Apr 08
hay whatshername! there realy is no contradiction here.
@II2aTee (2560)
• United States
23 Apr 08
I am not so sure where they went after Jesus was born, but I know where they were BEFORE he was born. That was actually the first documented case of PMS in history. Mary rode Josephs a$$ all the way to Bethleham.
@cyntrow (8527)
• United States
29 Apr 08
LMFAO. I've actually never heard that one before. Hilarious. Thanks for the smile
• Philippines
2 May 08
cytrow;Before I answer to your topic, I would like to be honest to my self and to all of here first. I dont like to answer topics/discussions specially something in the Bible or anything pertaining to God and His Deity or anything else related to Him, His Son the Scripture etc. as though I have red and I have fully understand the scriptures and its entirely. Being Honest to you, I always read my bible but I havent noticed the one you've stated so; for me to answer this is true, that is false and so... it is too early to say and a foolishness I would say to answer questions without having a knowledge of that thing first. So, Im going to read it first and its surrounding cercumstances before I gave my opinion, but before that I would just like to say some few things, If you dont mind..."I have a Great Respect to Gods Scriptures and His Words"II Peter 3:16 (LJV) "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of theses things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."---we must admit that there are really things and parts in the bible which are not easy to be understand by us. So we/I and all of us must not easily jump into some conclutions like others do, unto their own destructions. But my hope and my belief is this:Proverbs 30:5 "Every word of God is pure..."Isaiah 34:16 "Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them."
• United States
23 Apr 08
This is a great discussion, and it's interesting to me, because I have often debated these types of questions in the past. There are a number of Christians who believe that the Bible is literally the word of God. That every single word is in the Bible because that's the way God wanted it to be. But I fall into the camp of people who believe that the sentiment and intentions of God might be in the Bible. But given the way it was put together (and every Biblical scholar other than the most conservative admit it was somewhat slapped together out of many existing documents), it seems difficult to argue that every single word is correct and just the way God wanted it. There are a number of contradictions in the Bible. The same story is often told several times, with sometimes very different outcomes. And that's a reflection of the many authors and the time that passed between the life of Jesus and the time when the various parts of the New Testament were written.