Zone1 Is the Bible infallable?

[Votto]

Is the Bible perfect in every way? This is a question that plagues many. If it is not perfect in every way, then how can it be trusted for anything? But then, we put our trust in imperfect human beings every day, people we know who are fallible. In fact, the Bible was written by those imperfect people. So, it seems odd to me that man would be perfect ONLY when it comes to relaying the scriptures.

For example, the gospels have disparities between them.

Matthew 27:5 "Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself

Acts 1:18 "Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out"

Are the two reconcilable? What you have in the gospels are eyewitness accounts, like you would in a court of law that is used as evidence. You would never expect all the eyewitness accounts to match perfectly, unless they colluded with themselves before hand, which would then discredit their testimony. But their testimony collectively should have a common theme of truth, which would be used as evidence in a court of law. The entire reason they were written was to relay who Jesus of Nazareth was and his mission from God to mankind. That is the common truth they all agree with.

I think Christians fail to realize this when insisting that every word in the Bible is perfect. That is why you have multiple authors, not just one, who don't use the other to write their stories. That is why there is 4 gospels and not just one to tell the world about the man named Jesus. THey were not copying the other books to make them all line up perfectly. Instead, they are simply relaying their experiences. I view this a more powerful tool of evidence using this perspective than to convince people that broken sinful people, like Peter who denied Jesus 3 times himself, were perfect when they relayed the gospels to us.

No where does the Bible claim to be perfect; it only claims to be God inspired who is perfect. And there is no getting around it being God inspired from my view. There are simply too many truths that mankind should not know about when they were written to conclude anything other than the scriptures being God inspired truth.

If God wanted the Bible to be perfect, he would have had Jesus, who is the only person in the Bible that has claim to perfection, to have written it. Instead, God relied on fallible man to do it.

That is all.

Thoughts?

 

[theHawk]

Is the Bible perfect in every way? This is a question that plagues many. If it is not perfect in every way, then how can it be trusted for anything? But then, we put our trust in imperfect human beings every day, people we know who are fallible. In fact, the Bible was written by those imperfect people. So, it seems odd to me that man would be perfect ONLY when it comes to relaying the scriptures.

For example, the gospels have disparities between them.

Matthew 27:5 "Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself

Acts 1:18 "Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out"

Are the two reconcilable? What you have in the gospels are eyewitness accounts, like you would in a court of law that is used as evidence. You would never expect all the eyewitness accounts to match perfectly, unless they colluded with themselves before hand, which would then discredit their testimony. But their testimony collectively should have a common theme of truth, which would be used as evidence in a court of law. The entire reason they were written was to relay who Jesus of Nazareth was and his mission from God to mankind. That is the common truth they all agree with.

I think Christians fail to realize this when insisting that every word in the Bible is perfect. That is why you have multiple authors, not just one, who don't use the other to write their stories. That is why there is 4 gospels and not just one to tell the world about the man named Jesus. THey were not copying the other books to make them all line up perfectly. Instead, they are simply relaying their experiences. I view this a more powerful tool of evidence using this perspective than to convince people that broken sinful people, like Peter who denied Jesus 3 times himself, were perfect when they relayed the gospels to us.

No where does the Bible claim to be perfect; it only claims to be God inspired who is perfect. And there is no getting around it being God inspired from my view. There are simply too many truths that mankind should not know about when they were written to conclude anything other than the scriptures being God inspired truth.

If God wanted the Bible to be perfect, he would have had Jesus, who is the only person in the Bible that has claim to perfection, to have written it. Instead, God relied on fallible man to do it.

That is all.

Thoughts?

It doesn’t conflict.

You failed to read the rest of Matthew:

6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10 and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”

He did throw down the coins and the Priests took the money but weren’t allowed to use it for the temple, so they purchased the field in question, so it was still Judas’ blood money that purchased the field.

He hanged himself there and then fell from up high and split open.


Both accounts are accurate.

 

[Votto]

So, the question begs, what are the truths in the Bible that man should have no knowledge of?

For starters, in Genesis, it says that the universe had a beginning, the very first words in the Bible. We may not think much of it today, but those words have large implications scientifically. It was not long ago, in the 1950's, that scientists thought that the universe was static and eternal. In fact, Albert Einstein altered his theory of relativity to make that model work in his calculations. However, the problem was not the theory of Relativity, it was the scientifically accepted notion that the universe is static and eternal that was wrong. No, the universe not only had a beginning, it is accelerating and expanding exponentially. Once science was able to look back in time via more powerful telescopes, they discovered their error and realized there was what they called a Big Bang. It was then that Einstein became red faced and stated that altering his Theory of Relativity instead of putting established scientific theory to the test, thus enduring all the potential criticism that surely would have come, was the biggest blunder of his life.

Interestingly enough, the Big Bang theory was actually introduced by a priest who dabbled in science, someone Einstein with the rest of his scientific buddies used to ridicule for coming up with such a crazy theory.

There is also the nagging declaration in the Bible that man was made from the dust of the earth, something that science agrees with. No, man was not created by a purple cow having sex with a pink elephant, as other religions might explain.

So, how did they know these things?

Of course, there are a myriad more examples we can use, such as the teaching not to drink raw blood and eat raw fat, something science says is dangerous to do. Again, how did they know? In fact, the Mosiac cleanliness laws Jews followed in Europe kept them from suffering during the Black Plague.

 

[SweetSue92]

Is the Bible perfect in every way? This is a question that plagues many. If it is not perfect in every way, then how can it be trusted for anything? But then, we put our trust in imperfect human beings every day, people we know who are fallible. In fact, the Bible was written by those imperfect people. So, it seems odd to me that man would be perfect ONLY when it comes to relaying the scriptures.

For example, the gospels have disparities between them.

Matthew 27:5 "Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself

Acts 1:18 "Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out"

Are the two reconcilable? What you have in the gospels are eyewitness accounts, like you would in a court of law that is used as evidence. You would never expect all the eyewitness accounts to match perfectly, unless they colluded with themselves before hand, which would then discredit their testimony. But their testimony collectively should have a common theme of truth, which would be used as evidence in a court of law. The entire reason they were written was to relay who Jesus of Nazareth was and his mission from God to mankind. That is the common truth they all agree with.

I think Christians fail to realize this when insisting that every word in the Bible is perfect. That is why you have multiple authors, not just one, who don't use the other to write their stories. That is why there is 4 gospels and not just one to tell the world about the man named Jesus. THey were not copying the other books to make them all line up perfectly. Instead, they are simply relaying their experiences. I view this a more powerful tool of evidence using this perspective than to convince people that broken sinful people, like Peter who denied Jesus 3 times himself, were perfect when they relayed the gospels to us.

No where does the Bible claim to be perfect; it only claims to be God inspired who is perfect. And there is no getting around it being God inspired from my view. There are simply too many truths that mankind should not know about when they were written to conclude anything other than the scriptures being God inspired truth.

If God wanted the Bible to be perfect, he would have had Jesus, who is the only person in the Bible that has claim to perfection, to have written it. Instead, God relied on fallible man to do it.

That is all.

Thoughts?

The Bible is inerrant, but it's important to understand context. For example, the Bible does not say, literally, that "trees clap their hands" like in Psalms. Some language is poetic, figurative, or metaphorical.

 

[Votto]

It doesn’t conflict.

You failed to read the rest of Matthew:

6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10 and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”

He did throw down the coins and the Priests took the money but weren’t allowed to use it for the temple, so they purchased the field in question, so it was still Judas’ blood money that purchased the field.

He hanged himself there and then fell from up high and split open.


Both accounts are accurate.

I concede that what appears to be conflicting may not be in reality.

But there are other questions, such as

Matthew 4:18-22

While walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon (who is called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen. And he said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” Immediately they left their nets and followed him. And going on from there he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets, and he called them. Immediately they left the boat and their father and followed him.

Mark 1:16-20

Passing alongside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen. And Jesus said to them,“Follow me, and I will make you become fishers of men.” And immediately they left their nets and followed him. And going on a little farther, he saw James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, who were in their boat mending the nets. And immediately he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants and followed him.

 

[Votto]

The Bible is inerrant, but it's important to understand context. For example, the Bible does not say, literally, that "trees clap their hands" like in Psalms. Some language is poetic, figurative, or metaphorical.

God is inerrant. We agree on that.

Man is not inerrant. We agree on that.

Man writing the Bible is inerrant.

Seems contradictory, so it could only be explained by it being a miracle after miracle to save it from fallibility.

 

[alang1216]

I think Christians fail to realize this when insisting that every word in the Bible is perfect. That is why you have multiple authors, not just one, who don't use the other to write their stories. That is why there is 4 gospels and not just one to tell the world about the man named Jesus. THey were not copying the other books to make them all line up perfectly. Instead, they are simply relaying their experiences.

Most what you wrote is correct, however, it is generally agreed the synoptic gospels are linked. Mark was a source for both Matthew and Luke who also shared a list of quotes of Jesus, now missing. It is called Q, German for 'source'.

 

[Votto]

Most what you wrote is correct, however, it is generally agreed the synoptic gospels are linked. Mark was a source for both Matthew and Luke who also shared a list of quotes of Jesus, now missing. It is called Q, German for 'source'.

It is noteworthy that the Book of Judas references the book of Enoch, yet Enoch was left out of the Canonized Bible.

What does the fact that Jude (vs 14-15) used 1 Enoch say about it being an inspired book? – Evidence for Christianity

evidenceforchristianity.org

In fact, the early church used the Book of Enoch to a great degree, mainly because it was written pre-Christ, but has the most startling prophesies about Christ being the Son of God pre New Testament.

Yet they kept it out.

 

[Votto]

I think that one of the core strengths of the Bible is it's repetitive nature, in terms of what matters.

1. Love
2. Charity
3. Faith
4. Hope of Messiah and redemption for humanity.

Another strength is that it was not written by just one person. Any Joe Blow can sit down and write a Bible, or "fix" the Bible, as we see with Joseph Smith or Mohammad. But the Bible is a string of books that goes back centuries, yet it is cohesive and keeps pounding the same message.

And lasty, with the Bible, we see that the most valued Patriarchs and heroes are flawed. What other religion does this? Moses stuttered so bad he had to have his brother talk to the Pharaoh for him, and even murdered a man, just like King David did after murdering his lovers wife. Eeeks!!

Conversely, any Muslim, and they will swear up and down that Mo was flawless. In addition, the Koran is perfect and flawless. They believe this to such an extent, that if you so much as desecrate a Koran, they will want to kill you. It is almost a cult of the Koran they worship it so much. Unfortunately, I think for some Christians, they lean this direction as well.

These things lend increasing credibility to the Bible in my view.

 

[Meriweather]

For example, the gospels have disparities between them.

Matthew 27:5 "Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself

Acts 1:18 "Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out"

Etymology. One assessment I read (a long time ago) pointed out that our current definition of "hanged himself" involve a rope/noose of some type around the neck and jumping off something. In Biblical times "hanged himself" involved something different. For example, "hanging Jesus on a cross" does not mean they tied a rope around Jesus neck that was tied to a cross. David's son hanged himself by having long hair. Judas may well have hanged himself by falling headlong which resulted in something piercing his entrails. In other words, Judas' may not have committed suicide, he simply fell and got hung up through his mid-section.

 

[ReinyDays]

The flaws are only in Man's interpretation of the Bible ... if you don't believe, you won't understand ...

 

[dudmuck]

The Bible is inerrant, but it's important to understand context. For example, the Bible does not say, literally, that "trees clap their hands" like in Psalms. Some language is poetic, figurative, or metaphorical.

its god's message delivered by men, otherwise why would there be such redundancy.

Contradictions about Jesus's birth: The stories of Jesus's birth in Matthew and Luke are different.
Contradictions about Jesus's death: The Gospels differ on the day Jesus died, who went to his tomb, and what the women saw there.
Contradictions about Jesus's teachings: The Gospels of Mark and John don't mention the trinity, Jesus being God, or the virgin birth.
Contradictions about Jesus's genealogy: The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke differ.
Contradictions about Judas's betrayal: The Gospels give different reasons why Judas betrayed Jesus.
Contradictions about the voice from heaven: The voice from heaven after Jesus's baptism says different things in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

 

[Frankenstein]

Is the Bible perfect in every way? This is a question that plagues many. If it is not perfect in every way, then how can it be trusted for anything? But then, we put our trust in imperfect human beings every day, people we know who are fallible. In fact, the Bible was written by those imperfect people. So, it seems odd to me that man would be perfect ONLY when it comes to relaying the scriptures.

For example, the gospels have disparities between them.

Matthew 27:5 "Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself

Acts 1:18 "Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out"

Are the two reconcilable? What you have in the gospels are eyewitness accounts, like you would in a court of law that is used as evidence. You would never expect all the eyewitness accounts to match perfectly, unless they colluded with themselves before hand, which would then discredit their testimony. But their testimony collectively should have a common theme of truth, which would be used as evidence in a court of law. The entire reason they were written was to relay who Jesus of Nazareth was and his mission from God to mankind. That is the common truth they all agree with.

I think Christians fail to realize this when insisting that every word in the Bible is perfect. That is why you have multiple authors, not just one, who don't use the other to write their stories. That is why there is 4 gospels and not just one to tell the world about the man named Jesus. THey were not copying the other books to make them all line up perfectly. Instead, they are simply relaying their experiences. I view this a more powerful tool of evidence using this perspective than to convince people that broken sinful people, like Peter who denied Jesus 3 times himself, were perfect when they relayed the gospels to us.

No where does the Bible claim to be perfect; it only claims to be God inspired who is perfect. And there is no getting around it being God inspired from my view. There are simply too many truths that mankind should not know about when they were written to conclude anything other than the scriptures being God inspired truth.

If God wanted the Bible to be perfect, he would have had Jesus, who is the only person in the Bible that has claim to perfection, to have written it. Instead, God relied on fallible man to do it.

That is all.

Thoughts?

Yes it is

 

[Frankenstein]

So, the question begs, what are the truths in the Bible that man should have no knowledge of?

For starters, in Genesis, it says that the universe had a beginning, the very first words in the Bible. We may not think much of it today, but those words have large implications scientifically. It was not long ago, in the 1950's, that scientists thought that the universe was static and eternal. In fact, Albert Einstein altered his theory of relativity to make that model work in his calculations. However, the problem was not the theory of Relativity, it was the scientifically accepted notion that the universe is static and eternal that was wrong. No, the universe not only had a beginning, it is accelerating and expanding exponentially. Once science was able to look back in time via more powerful telescopes, they discovered their error and realized there was what they called a Big Bang. It was then that Einstein became red faced and stated that altering his Theory of Relativity instead of putting established scientific theory to the test, thus enduring all the potential criticism that surely would have come, was the biggest blunder of his life.

Interestingly enough, the Big Bang theory was actually introduced by a priest who dabbled in science, someone Einstein with the rest of his scientific buddies used to ridicule for coming up with such a crazy theory.

There is also the nagging declaration in the Bible that man was made from the dust of the earth, something that science agrees with. No, man was not created by a purple cow having sex with a pink elephant, as other religions might explain.

So, how did they know these things?

Of course, there are a myriad more examples we can use, such as the teaching not to drink raw blood and eat raw fat, something science says is dangerous to do. Again, how did they know? In fact, the Mosiac cleanliness laws Jews followed in Europe kept them from suffering during the Black Plague.

Big Bang equals God spoke!

 

[Votto]

The flaws are only in Man's interpretation of the Bible ... if you don't believe, you won't understand ...

I rather enjoyed reading Jesus talking to his disciples in terms of who and what he was.

Mark 8:27 And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?

28 And they answered, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets.

29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.

30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

In another account, Jesus told Peter that God had revealed this to him.

Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it.

As we see here, the "interpretation" as to who Jesus is and was is up in the air during this time.

We are still asking this today, but it is evident that only God can reveal the true interpretation, if we are deemed ready to receive it.

Interestingly, Jesus tells his disciples not to tell anyone who he was. Why, if what he is saying is not proclaiming himself to be the only Son of God? What would be wrong with being just another prophet? No, it is self-evident here that he has made himself equal with God, and would have been quickly murdered for blasphemy had it been revealed to the religious leaders.

Yet not everyone "interprets" it this way.

Simply amazing.

 

[Mashmont]

Is the Bible perfect in every way? This is a question that plagues many. If it is not perfect in every way, then how can it be trusted for anything? But then, we put our trust in imperfect human beings every day, people we know who are fallible. In fact, the Bible was written by those imperfect people. So, it seems odd to me that man would be perfect ONLY when it comes to relaying the scriptures.

For example, the gospels have disparities between them.

Matthew 27:5 "Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself

Acts 1:18 "Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out"

Are the two reconcilable? What you have in the gospels are eyewitness accounts, like you would in a court of law that is used as evidence. You would never expect all the eyewitness accounts to match perfectly, unless they colluded with themselves before hand, which would then discredit their testimony. But their testimony collectively should have a common theme of truth, which would be used as evidence in a court of law. The entire reason they were written was to relay who Jesus of Nazareth was and his mission from God to mankind. That is the common truth they all agree with.

I think Christians fail to realize this when insisting that every word in the Bible is perfect. That is why you have multiple authors, not just one, who don't use the other to write their stories. That is why there is 4 gospels and not just one to tell the world about the man named Jesus. THey were not copying the other books to make them all line up perfectly. Instead, they are simply relaying their experiences. I view this a more powerful tool of evidence using this perspective than to convince people that broken sinful people, like Peter who denied Jesus 3 times himself, were perfect when they relayed the gospels to us.

No where does the Bible claim to be perfect; it only claims to be God inspired who is perfect. And there is no getting around it being God inspired from my view. There are simply too many truths that mankind should not know about when they were written to conclude anything other than the scriptures being God inspired truth.

If God wanted the Bible to be perfect, he would have had Jesus, who is the only person in the Bible that has claim to perfection, to have written it. Instead, God relied on fallible man to do it.

That is all.

Thoughts?

Four people see the same thing. Four people report different things. It's inevitable there would be differences.

 

[Frankenstein]

its god's message delivered by men, otherwise why would there be such redundancy.

Contradictions about Jesus's birth: The stories of Jesus's birth in Matthew and Luke are different.
Contradictions about Jesus's death: The Gospels differ on the day Jesus died, who went to his tomb, and what the women saw there.
Contradictions about Jesus's teachings: The Gospels of Mark and John don't mention the trinity, Jesus being God, or the virgin birth.
Contradictions about Jesus's genealogy: The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke differ.
Contradictions about Judas's betrayal: The Gospels give different reasons why Judas betrayed Jesus.
Contradictions about the voice from heaven: The voice from heaven after Jesus's baptism says different things in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Only two of the gospels give an account of the happenings surrounding Jesus’ birth. Matthew 1–2 gives information about Joseph and includes the story of the magi from the East. Luke 1–2 does not mention the magi but focuses on Mary and various others (Elizabeth, Zacharias, the shepherds, Simeon, and Anna) who praised God for the Incarnation.

Various people have claimed that the books of Matthew and Luke contradict each other and that the narratives of Jesus’ birth are in opposition. The claim is specious, and the details provided by Matthew and Luke are easily reconciled into a comprehensive whole.

First, here are the details that Matthew and Luke unquestionably agree on:

Jesus was born of a virgin (Matthew 1:18, 23, 25; Luke 1:27).
Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth, a town in Galilee (Matthew 2:23; Luke 1:26; 2:4).
Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4–7).
After Jesus’ birth, Mary and Joseph returned to Nazareth (Matthew 2:23; Luke 2:39).

Second, here are the details that are unique to each writer:

The magi visit Jesus (Matthew 2:1–12).
Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt to escape Herod’s cruelty (Matthew 2:13–18).
A group of shepherds visit Jesus in the manger (Luke 2:8–20).
Joseph and Mary make a trip to the temple in Jerusalem in fulfillment of the Law (Luke 2:22–39).

Those who claim to see a contradiction in the narratives of Christ’s birth usually point to Luke 2:39, which says, “When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth,” and Matthew 2:21–23, which says that Joseph and his family went to Nazareth on their return from Egypt. According to the critics, Luke, who says nothing about the flight to Egypt, indicates that Jesus was taken to Nazareth directly from the temple; and Matthew, who does not mention the temple observances, says that Jesus was taken to Nazareth directly from Egypt.

It’s important to acknowledge that silence does not equal denial. Luke’s omission in his narrative of the flight to Egypt cannot be construed as evidence that it never happened. Luke never says that Joseph and Mary did not go to Egypt; he simply doesn’t comment on the event. Matthew never mentions the shepherds of the nativity—are we to assume because of Matthew’s omission that no shepherds came? Also important is the fact that neither Matthew nor Luke claim that he is penning an exhaustive account of every detail surrounding the birth of Christ.

The question then is, does Luke’s narrative allow for enough time for a trip to Egypt? Between the circumcision of Jesus and the trip to the temple was 32 days—about a month. Trying to fit a trip to Egypt and back in that time frame is problematic. A better way to reconcile Matthew’s and Luke’s narratives is to place the flight to Egypt after Jesus’ appearance in the temple. This assumes that Joseph and Mary remained in Bethlehem after Jesus’ birth and that they had a place to stay—the “house” of Matthew 2:11.

Luke 2:39 says, “When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.” Note that Luke does not say that they immediately returned to Galilee, and there is no reason to insert that word into the verse. (One could just as easily insert the word eventually.) The fact is that Luke doesn’t specify how much time elapsed. He simply says that, after their visit to the temple, Joseph and Mary settled in Nazareth. It could have been days later. It could have been months. If we place the flight to Egypt in the middle of Luke 2:39, we have a workable chronology:

1) After visiting the temple, Joseph and Mary return to Bethlehem. (In the month since Jesus’ birth, Joseph had probably sought temporary work there, and that work had become more permanent, perhaps. It’s also quite possible that Joseph was planning to resettle his new family in Bethlehem, thinking it would be good for the Son of David to be reared in the City of David).

2) Simeon and Anna begin spreading the news that they have seen the Messiah in Jerusalem (Luke 2:25–38).

3) Sometime later, the magi arrive at Jerusalem and confirm the news on the street that the Messiah has been born (Matthew 2:1–2). Herod sends the magi on to Bethlehem, where they find young Jesus (Matthew 2:3–11).

4) The magi return home a different way, and Joseph is warned in a dream to flee to Egypt (Matthew 2:12–13).

5) After a while, Herod figures out that the magi have disregarded his wishes, and he orders the slaughter of all males two years old and younger near Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16). The “two-year” computation indicates that Jesus could have already been that old.

6) Herod dies in 4 BC.

7) Joseph brings his family back from Egypt (Matthew 2:19–21). Out of fear of Herod’s son, Joseph changes his plan to settle in Bethlehem and instead moves back to Galilee (Matthew 2:22–23).

There is nothing in the above chronology that contradicts either Matthew or Luke. The only way to find a contradiction between Matthew 2:21–23 and Luke 2:39 is to make assumptions based on a preconceived bias against the veracity of Scripture.

Some critics find another supposed contradiction in the genealogies associated with the narratives of Jesus’ birth. Matthew 1:16 says that Joseph’s father was Jacob; Luke 3:23 says that Joseph’s father was Heli. There are several theories, but the best answer to this seeming discrepancy is that Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. There was no Koine Greek word with the exclusive meaning of “son-in-law,” and so Joseph is called the “son of Heli” due to his marriage to Heli’s daughter, Mary. Joseph was a “son” by marriage.

The gospels were written by four different men to four unique audiences, so it is natural that they would include different details concerning the life of Christ. But their writing was superintended by the Holy Spirit, who guaranteed that what each wrote was the absolute truth. There are differences, but they can all be harmonized. The narratives of Jesus’ birth found in Matthew and Luke are not contradictory but complementary.

 

[Votto]

its god's message delivered by men, otherwise why would there be such redundancy.

Contradictions about Jesus's birth: The stories of Jesus's birth in Matthew and Luke are different.
Contradictions about Jesus's death: The Gospels differ on the day Jesus died, who went to his tomb, and what the women saw there.
Contradictions about Jesus's teachings: The Gospels of Mark and John don't mention the trinity, Jesus being God, or the virgin birth.
Contradictions about Jesus's genealogy: The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke differ.
Contradictions about Judas's betrayal: The Gospels give different reasons why Judas betrayed Jesus.
Contradictions about the voice from heaven: The voice from heaven after Jesus's baptism says different things in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Please provide the scriptures

I will start with the first one. We are given the lineage of Christ in Matthew and Luke, but they seem to differ. This is because one is from his mother and the other from his father.

I assume that is what you are referring to. If so, there is no contradiction there.

 

[SweetSue92]

its god's message delivered by men, otherwise why would there be such redundancy.

Contradictions about Jesus's birth: The stories of Jesus's birth in Matthew and Luke are different.
Contradictions about Jesus's death: The Gospels differ on the day Jesus died, who went to his tomb, and what the women saw there.
Contradictions about Jesus's teachings: The Gospels of Mark and John don't mention the trinity, Jesus being God, or the virgin birth.
Contradictions about Jesus's genealogy: The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke differ.
Contradictions about Judas's betrayal: The Gospels give different reasons why Judas betrayed Jesus.
Contradictions about the voice from heaven: The voice from heaven after Jesus's baptism says different things in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Eyewitness testimony. For example both can be true:

Witness to cop: "suspect was wearing jeans and sneakers"

Witness to cop, same suspect: "Suspect was tall, white and carrying a black bag"

Both can be true. That information is omitted does not make either statement untrue.

 

[ReinyDays]

Please provide the scriptures

I will start with the first one. We are given the lineage of Christ in Matthew and Luke, but they seem to differ. This is because one is from his mother and the other from his father.

I assume that is what you are referring to. If so, there is no contradiction there.

Joseph isn't the father ... why include his lineage? ... why bother enumerating 14 generations between Abraham and Moses, 14 generations between Moses and David, and then what? ... 13 generations to Joseph ... who isn't the father ...

You'll have to be a believer to accept this ... Christ's birth is a miracle, not biology ... God the Father, Christ the Son, Man the Holy Spirit ...

The Bible is written onto our hearts and souls ... not on paper ... we are the self-same spirit ...