Do you acceept scriptural contradictions?

[polonius]

Christian religions use the Bible as their fundamental source which they may consider "God breathed."

But in Matthew we are told that Jesus was born during the days of King Herod who died about 4 BC, in Luke we have Jesus born during the 6 AD census of Judea.

So he would have been born twice in ten years.

Is this credible?

[Wootah]

Luke 2 New International Version (NIV)
The Birth of Jesus
2 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.

Are you referring to the first or second census?

[Overcomer]

You already have a thread on this topic, polonius. Why start another?

Here's the thing:

Many critics of the Bible complain about so-called contradictions, but often the things they cite as such are not. The Law of Non-Contradiction states that something cannot be one thing and its exact opposite at the same time. Therefore, to say that the animal sitting by my chair is a dog and then say that the animal sitting by my chair is NOT a dog constitutes a contradiction.

For your example to work, the Bible would have to say that Jesus was born in 4 A.D. and he was not born in 4 A.D., but the Bible doesn't say that. So the passages you have cited are not contradictory. You have been given several valid explanations of why both Matthew and Luke can both be correct. If you don't find any of them compelling, that's fine, but why start another thread to be told the exact same things as in the other thread? I'm not going to repeat myself by reiterating what I wrote there.

When critics of the Bible point out what they feel are discrepancies that discredit the Bible, it is usually the case that those discrepancies can be addressed with rational, logical explanations if the critic is a) willing to do the study required to find them and b) willing to entertain the explanations with an open mind and honesty, not a desperate need to dismiss the Bible as the words of man instead of the Word of God.

Besides, in this particular forum, it is a given that the Bible is a valid book, unless I misunderstand the rules. Here is the quotation that I believe is pertinent:

Criticism of sources, authorship, or redaction with the intent to discredit the authority of the canon are more appropriate for the Christianity and Apologetics subforum.

Therefore, I think both of your threads on the topic are misplaced.

[Checkpoint]

Christian religions use the Bible as their fundamental source which they may consider "God breathed."

But in Matthew we are told that Jesus was born during the days of King Herod who died about 4 BC, in Luke we have Jesus born during the 6 AD census of Judea.

So he would have been born twice in ten years.

Is this credible?

No, it is not credible.

This is just one of the many "contradictions" that skeptics misuse the Bible to, effectively, sow doubt and disbelief into believers.

Believers find credible answers and explanations to, effectively, strengthen the faith of their brothers and sisters.

Grace and peace.

[Zzyzx]

.

Christian religions use the Bible as their fundamental source which they may consider "God breathed."

But in Matthew we are told that Jesus was born during the days of King Herod who died about 4 BC, in Luke we have Jesus born during the 6 AD census of Judea.

So he would have been born twice in ten years.

Is this credible?

No, it is not credible.

Thank you. A source that credited someone being born during the Eisenhower administration AND the 2003 invasion of Iraq would not be credible

This is just one of the many "contradictions"

Agree. There are many contradictions in the Bible (often denied or dismissed by Apologists)

that skeptics misuse the Bible to,

How, exactly, is it ‘misuse of the Bible’ to point out its errors?

I understand that Bible defenders resent having errors pointed out to them and others (particularly others since those who are firmly committed typically dismiss errors).

effectively,

Yes, it is effective to point out errors in a supposedly true source

sow doubt and disbelief into believers.

Discrediting a flawed source SHOULD ‘sow doubt and disbelief’ in ALL who are interested in truth and accuracy.

Believers find credible answers and explanations

Kindly ‘answer or explain’ how one could be born “during the days of King Herod who died about 4 BC� AND “during the 6 AD census of Judea�

to, effectively, strengthen the faith of their brothers and sisters.

What is the worth of a ‘faith’ that is strengthened by anything other than truth and accuracy?

[Elijah John]

Christian religions use the Bible as their fundamental source which they may consider "God breathed."

But in Matthew we are told that Jesus was born during the days of King Herod who died about 4 BC, in Luke we have Jesus born during the 6 AD census of Judea.

So he would have been born twice in ten years.

Is this credible?

No, it is not credible.

This is just one of the many "contradictions" that skeptics misuse the Bible to, effectively, sow doubt and disbelief into believers.

Believers find credible answers and explanations to, effectively, strengthen the faith of their brothers and sisters.

Grace and peace.

Moderator Comment

This post of yours contains multiple, overlapping infractions. First, unsupported claims. Please provide evidence instead of simply making dismissive statements. Second, it's a bit preachy. And finally, the post really amounts to a 3 sentence "one liner" and does not advance the debate much at all.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.