Christians, how do you account for this contradiction?

Why are there different genealogies for Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3?

Matthew 1:16 - Luke 3:23

Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem--they are different. Luke's genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side?) and Solomon (Joseph's side).

There are differences of opinion with two main options being offered. The first is that one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/wh...

Bible difficulties, or apparent Bible contradictions, exist. The opponents of Christianity often use them in their attempts to discredit Christianity. Sometimes these attacks undermine the faith of Christians who either don't understand the issues or don't have the resources to deal with them.

Opponents of Christianity will cite what they consider a Bible contradiction or difficulty by comparing one verse to another (or more) that seems to disagree with the first. In doing this, several verses are often referenced as being contradictory or problematic. Therefore, to make this section of CARM easy to use, it is arranged by verse for easy lookup. Since many of the same "difficulties" deal with one verse in opposition to another or even several others, I have listed all the verses addressed in the same answer. This makes the initial list look larger than it really is. For example, how many animals did Noah bring into the ark? Genesis 6:19-20 says two while Gen. 7:2-3 mentions seven. Therefore, both verses are listed and both links point to the same answer.

http://carm.org/introduction-bible-difficulties-an...

If we read the Bible at face value, without a preconceived bias for finding errors, we will find it to be a coherent, consistent, and relatively easy-to-understand book. Yes, there are difficult passages. Yes, there are verses that appear to contradict each other. We must remember that the Bible was written by approximately 40 different authors over a period of around 1500 years. Each writer wrote with a different style, from a different perspective, to a different audience, for a different purpose. We should expect some minor differences. However, a difference is not a contradiction. It is only an error if there is absolutely no conceivable way the verses or passages can be reconciled. Even if an answer is not available right now, that does not mean an answer does not exist. Many have found a supposed error in the Bible in relation to history or geography only to find out that the Bible is correct once further archaeological evidence is discovered.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-errors.html

The Big Book of Bible Difficulties: Clear and Concise Answers from Genesis to Revelation

By: Norman L. Geisler, Thomas Howe

http://www.christianbook.com/difficulties-clear-co...

Herod the Great was an acknowledged paranoid nutjob, so the massacre of the innocents is credible, I think.

The biggest mismatch is the failure in the Luke account to mention the time in Egypt.

I think there is good reason to believe that Luke's early gospel account comes from the female angle, and it almost seems as if Luke was aware of Matthew's account, and disliked all the emphasis on men, ie Joseph receiving the dream, the magi coming and being warned by a dream, Mary is not so important, almost a baby-breeder in that account. Luke eschews the drama, to show God working through humble people, like the shepherds rather than the magi, and the women. It's almost as if in Luke's account he makes a thing of making the men look a bit idiotic -- Zecheriah being made dumb for a while because of unbelief, and the women playing significant part. It is possible Mary did not mention the Egyptian phase. We do not how long Luke interviewed her, or if it was people close to her. Luke wanting to make a smooth account, had to put in a few transitional words indicating they went to live in Nazareth. I think Luke didn't has as much as information as he would have liked, so there is a transitional verse showing them moving up to Nazareth. He may have made some presumptions as to what went on there, thinking it was not an important matter anyway.

It is impossible to reconcile if you're insisting that both sources must be perfect in accuracy.

If, on the other hand, we look at these as two compilations of biographical material from different sources, we see only that Luke's version includes two incidents (the presentation in Jerusalem and the Passover journey from Nazareth when Jesus was twelve), and has nothing in between, so it ties the two together with a nondescript statement indicating the transition (verse 39, the only real "contradictory" bit). About all that verse really tells us is they left Jerusalem, and by the time of the next story had been living in Nazareth for some time.

Matthew's account has the family living in Nazareth after a relatively short time: Herod the Great died in 4 BCE, so they'd have been there by Jesus' third birthday. (You DID know the date calculations are a bit off, I trust?) That's plenty of time to establish an annual family custom of going to Jerusalem for Passover.

Whether a particular biographer had picked up any information about the flight to Egypt could easily depend on his sources. (I myself don't remember any particular dwelling place before I was two years old--including my birthplace.)

All this definitely shows us is that these two parts of these two accounts derived from different sources with different information. That argues that the gospels are not entirely fictional, because if they were they'd be more likely to use coordinated facts. But unless you're prepared to demand that Luke 2:39 possess sacred, supernaturally perfect accuracy, it doesn't show much of a contradiction. And 2:41 shows no particular contradiction at all.

Of course, one is free to speculate that the Matthew author (probably not Matthew) put in the flight to Egypt to fit into one of his prophecies. He certainly mined the Septuagint for such references that he could claim were fulfilled.

Your inability to comprehend time does not constitute a contradiction on the part of the Bible. The family went to Nazareth first.

Your first problem appears to be that you are confusing the account of the shepherds that visited Jesus at the time of his birth with the account of the magi astrologers that visited Jesus at two years old. These are two separate situations, not the same visiting. So what happened is that because of the required census, Joseph took the pregnant Mary to Bethlehem away from their home in Nazareth.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem, where he was visited by an unknown number of shepherds. Afterwards the family returned to Nazareth, where Jesus continued growing. When he was two years old, he was visited by magi astrologers from the east (hence the reason they did not visit until he was two years old, they had to traverse the landmass between where they lived in another country all the way to Nazareth). This is when Herod ordered the execution of any Jewish male child under the age of two years old, and THIS is when Joseph had the dream from God that sent him and his family to Egypt.

edit:

Keep reading the scripture you posted. Herod told them to go to Bethlehem because he knew that the scriptures promised that he would be born there, but that was the last information that he had, and did not know where the child Jesus had been taken from there.

The magi astrologers did not follow Herod's command, but instead followed the same star that led them to Herod to begin with; and that star settled over the house of Joseph and Mary, not over the manger at the inn where Jesus was born. They went to where Joseph's house was located, not to Bethlehem. Joseph's house was located in Nazareth, so they went to Nazareth.

I'll go ahead and tackle the third example.

But I'd like to do it by email if you would.

I need a bit more explaining from you on where you are getting your info in Matthew.

I love the symbolisms in scripture and that's why I choose this one.

the last first

Some prophecies are warnings, that will not be carried out if they repent

they repented

had to exaggerate on Luke 2 I see

39 So when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth - where is straight away here?

Is to solve all these problems in the Egyptian courts

Wow dude I'm stunned by that contradiction I don't think I'll be able to believe in god anymore

They don't account for it, they just claim you're taking it out of context and that you must accept God or burn in hell... Just watch

No contradictions, sorry. Merely your misunderstanding of scripture.