Mmkay, Babble. Let's look at just one, and see what you have to say about it.
As I've mentioned previously, Scripture cannot establish an accurate date of JesusÂ’s birth. Luke 2:1-5 reports that
“And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child."
Now, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius governed Syria during A.D. 6-9, after Herod Archelaus was banished. Similarly, the census taken during his period of governance occurred in A.D. 6, and Gamaliel mentioned in Acts 5:37 that this caused a violent revolt, (perhaps inspired by religious objections by the Jews in memory of King DavidÂ’s sinful attempt to do the same thing), a fact that is recorded by the historian Josephus. But if Jesus was born in A.D. 6, the attempts of Herod the Great to murder him that are recorded in Matthew 2 cannot be accurate, since Herod died in 4 B.C.
Hence, there is a discrepancy of about ten years between the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. Moreover, if we regard the birth date of A.D. 6 as being accurate, LukeÂ’s account that
“Jesus began his ministry at about thirty years of age” in Luke 3:23 would seem to be inaccurate.
Thus, it is for that reason that the author of the Gospel of Luke is regarded as having made a mistake, which of course, poses some problems for the conception of the Bible as “infallible” and “divinely inspired.”
So what do you say, Babble?
