Well, it’s that time of year again. Regular church attendees are going to have to share their pews with people who have finally decided to make it out for their second service of the year. Their belief that Jesus bled and died so they can gain eternal salvation might be unshakable, but it apparently isn’t all that motivating, considering how little these believers seem to do in response. Nevertheless, they can at least be counted on to show up for a retelling of Jesus’s miraculous birth.
But what version will they hear? More than likely, they’ll hear a “Hollywood” version of the tale that incorporates the most exciting elements of the two versions that we read about in Matthew and Luke. A quick Google search turned up this one, which illustrates my point perfectly. But what if someone tried to tell the full version? A version that included every detail that both Matthew and Luke provide?
Honestly, it just can’t be done. I had wanted to attempt it here, but there’s just no practical way to do it. For example, the version I linked to above goes like this:
The Standard Tale
- Mary’s visited by an angel who tells her about the pregnancy (Luke)
- She and Joseph live in Nazareth of Galilee, but are forced to travel to Bethlehem in Judea for a census commanded by the Roman authorities (Luke)
- They’re unable to find normal accommodations and are forced to room in an area intended for livestock. Mary gives birth there and is visited by local shepherds (Luke)
- Wise men far to the east see a star that somehow signifies the birth of the Jewish Messiah (Matthew)
- They travel for an unspecified period until they reach Jerusalem, where they inquire about the child (Matthew)
- These inquiries reach Herod, the ruler of the region, and he asks the wise men to send back word to him once they find the child, so Herod himself can also pay his respects (Matthew)
- The wise men make their way to Bethlehem, find the family, bestow their gifts, and return home via a different route (Matthew)
- An angel tells Joseph to hightail it out of Bethlehem, because Herod’s sending a posse to wipe out all the children 2 years old and under in an effort to stamp out Jesus (Matthew)
- Joseph and his family flee to Egypt and remain there until an angel tells him it’s safe to return, because Herod has died (Matthew)
- Joseph intends to go back toward Bethlehem, but after finding out that Herod’s son is in charge, he takes the family to Nazareth in Galilee (Matthew)
So what’s wrong with this story? I mean, it’s very cohesive, and it makes for a compelling tale. What’s not to like? Its only real problem is that the very books of the Bible that provide its details, contradict its overall narrative.
Two Very Different Stories
Let’s go back to Luke’s version. After Jesus’s birth and the visit from the shepherds, we don’t read about wise men or Herod’s animosity. Instead, Luke 2:22 says that after the days of Mary’s purification were over, the family went to Jerusalem. The “days of purification” are referring to Leviticus 12:1-4, where the Law of Moses stated that a woman was to be considered “unclean” for 40 days after giving birth to a male child. So when Jesus was about 40 days old, Luke claims that they all traveled to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices as thanks for his birth. While there, two elderly people see Jesus and begin proclaiming praise and prophecies concerning Jesus. And there’s no indication that an effort was made to keep any of this quiet, which is very different in tone to what we read in Matthew. Finally, in Luke 2:39, we read “And when they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.” We’ll come back to this point in a moment.
The synopsis we looked at earlier incorporated most of Matthew’s version of the story. As we just read, his story ends very differently from Luke’s. However, it’s also significant to note that Matthew gives no indication that Joseph and Mary are from Nazareth. Matt 1:18 through the end of the chapter talks about Mary’s pregnancy, even though she and Joseph had never slept together, but it never specifies where they’re living. Chapter 2 begins with the sentence “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, ‘Where is he who has been born king of the Jews?'” Of course, it’s possible that Matthew still knew they were originally from Nazareth and just doesn’t bother to tell us that or divulge how they got to Bethlehem in the first place. But there are three context clues that point against such a possibility. First of all, regardless of how far the wise men had to journey, it likely took them quite a while to make the trip. When Matthew says “the east” he certainly doesn’t mean “east Jersualem,” and travel being what it was back then, any journey would have taken considerable time. The second clue is that Herod supposedly kills all the male children of Bethlehem who are 2 and under. So it’s unlikely that we’re supposed to still be thinking of Jesus as a newborn. Finally, Matthew says that when the family was able to leave Egypt, Joseph wanted to go back to Judea (where Bethlehem is). But after finding out Herod’s son was ruling, he became afraid and “went and lived in a city called Nazareth” (Matt 2:23). This is a very strange way to refer to Nazareth, if it’s where Joseph and Mary were already living.
So Matthew gives no indication that Joseph and Mary were just visiting Bethlehem. He never mentions a manger; instead, he references a house that they were staying in. He never talks about the shepherds from the fields, but has wise men who visit the child. He includes a story about Herod slaughtering a town’s children, though no other historical or biblical source ever mentions this. He claims that the family flees to Egypt until Herod’s death, that they want to return to Bethlehem, but finally settle in “a city called Nazareth.”
Luke, on the other hand, says that Nazareth is their home town, and they’re only visiting Bethlehem. He has no story about wise men, but does talk about shepherds from the fields that visit the newborn Jesus. Instead of Herod attempting to hunt them down and a subsequent flight to Egypt, the family travels straight to Jerusalem, where Herod lives. And there’s no effort to keep Jesus’s identity secret while they’re there, as two elderly prophets begin proclaiming who he is. And after making their sacrifices, the family simply goes back home to Nazareth, far from Herod’s reach (not that Luke indicates Herod’s even interested).
Can These Stories Be Put Together?
The main sticking points between the stories are the flight to Egypt and the trip to Jerusalem. On the one hand, Luke is very clear about his timeline: Jesus was only about 40 days old when they went to Jerusalem and then went home to Nazareth. Matthew doesn’t give specifics on how old Jesus was when the family was forced to flee to Egypt, except that it must have occurred before he was 2 years old.
Could the trip to Egypt have happened before the trip to Jerusalem?
No. First of all, considering all the details Luke provides, why would he have left out such an important event? Secondly, this means Herod would have needed to die within the 40 day purification period, but Matthew tells us that this still wouldn’t have been good enough, because Joseph was determined to avoid all of Judea while Herod’s son was reigning. There’s simply no way he would have felt safe enough to travel directly into Jerusalem. That just makes no sense.
Could the trip to Egypt have happened after the trip to Jerusalem?
No. Luke 2:39 is clear that the family went straight back to Nazareth after their trip to Jerusalem. And considering Luke claimed that Nazareth was already their home, why would they have needed to go back to Bethlehem anyway?
In fact, Luke’s claim that the family was from Nazareth creates a lot of problems for Matthew’s account. Nazareth was far outside of Herod’s reach. So if Herod really had hunted Jesus in Bethlehem, the family could have simply gone back to Nazareth rather than flee to Egypt. But this isn’t a consideration in Matthew’s account, because for him, the family has never been to Nazareth until they simply can’t go back to Bethlehem anymore, even after Herod’s death (Matt 2:23).
Additional Problems
I don’t want to spend too much time here, but for completeness sake, I need to mention a couple of historical issues. Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus is born during the reign of Herod the Great. Historians usually place his death in 4 BCE, which means Jesus would have been born sometime before that. However, Luke says that Mary and Joseph had traveled to Bethlehem, because Quirinius, the governor of Syria, had commanded a census. However, Quirinius didn’t become governor of Syria until 6 CE — 10 years after Herod’s death. You can find additional resources about these two issues here.
Finally, Luke’s claim is that this census required Joseph to travel back to his ancestral home of Bethlehem, since he was of King David’s lineage. But David would have lived some 1000 years before Joseph. It’s ludicrous to think that the Romans would have cared about such a thing, or that they would have wanted their empire to be so disrupted by having people move around like that for a census. It would have been an impossible feat and would have made for a highly inaccurate, and therefore useless, census.
What Do We Make of All This?
The easiest way to understand why these accounts have such major differences in detail is to understand why either writer bothered with a story about Jesus’s birth at all. You have to remember that the writers of Matthew and Luke didn’t know one another and didn’t know that they were both working on the same material. They certainly didn’t know that their books would one day show up in the same collection. Both of them were working with two basic facts: Micah 5:2 seemed to prophesy that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem; Jesus came from Nazareth (John 1:45-46).
Since those two facts were at odds with one another, it’s easy to see how both writers would have been compelled to explain how Jesus could be from Nazareth but still be from Bethlehem. Unfortunately for them, close comparison shows that both versions simply can’t be true.
How would people react if they showed up for church this weekend and were presented with the full details from both of these stories? I like to think it would spur many of them into deeper study. That it would possibly make them question some of the things they’ve been taking for granted. But 2016 has been pretty demoralizing when it comes to the number of people who seem concerned about what’s true, and I’m not sure how many of them would see this information as a call to action. I know there are people who can be changed by facts. Perhaps there aren’t as many of them as I once thought, but I know they’re out there. And with the way information spreads these days, I’m sure they’ll eventually find the facts they’re looking for.
Finding Truth 
The experts in the field such as Steven Hawkings say that it is very probable that the universe began with a Big Bang and therefore admit that a First Cause (such as a God) is a possibility. However, no one has PROVEN that the universe did not come from nothing.
I am starting to get the impression that you are not really interested in a discussion, but are simply a troll, interested in stirring the pot. I hope I am wrong.
LikeLiked by 3 people
@ nate
Sorry, but your entire premise is wrong. ‘Natural’ is fine and dandy AFTER’ the laws are set in motion, ie, the process whereby things are sustained…………it’s all about the Architect.
There is NOTHING natural as to the beginning, ie, the origin of origins.
It was all supernatural. Don’t think so? The light of the moon, even though temporary, is supernatural.
A light to rule the day, and a light to rule the night. He made the stars also. All supernatural. And quite an astounding preservation of this word.
Once you get a grasp on this, the Nativity story is easy. It’s the same truth.
LikeLike
@gary?
troll?
Perhaps you should read my blog.
Stirring the pot? Excuse me? I do not find godlessness very appetizing.
LikeLike
@CS: Perhaps you should answer the question to demonstrate that you are not trolling: Are you saying that it is a proven fact that the universe did not come from nothing? If so, would you please state the name of the respected world-renowned scientist willing to make such a statement?
LikeLike
With due respect, Nate, there is every reason to suspect such a statement. An entire religion has been built upon just this foundation.
Yes, Herod ruled but that we are obliged to stick Jesus in the same frame let alone time frame is simply wishful thinking, even it is based upon certain historical criteria.
No one is prepared to say: And what if the gospel of Mark is simply a work of fiction?
And there are quite a number of reasons why this could be true and it doesn’t take a genius to offer several very plausible reasons.
Of course, one will immediately be slated as a nutter.
Evangelical archaeologist, James Hoffemeir has stated that one of the reasons he believes the Exodus tale is fact is because it does not read like fiction . And in many cases, he is right.
But of course, he is deftly sidestepping the miracle issues and the hard evidence that flatly refutes such a historicity claim.
I consider the gospels should be read in a similar vein as there is no secular evidence for the pastiche that is woven through the tale of Jesus of Nazareth, and this is, for now, completely disregarding the supernatural crap.
If we are to laugh at the Miracle at Cana, for example, why must we take as a ”given” the Crucifixion at Golgotha?
Based on what evidence?
If we are to accept that the disciples were simply illiterate fishermen, then who on earth composed the Gospel of Mark, at least forty years after this supposed crucifixion?
And what were these ”scribes” doing in the intervening years?
As Wright points out, we don’t know when this (or any other) gospel was written. And the primary used for dating is the destruction of the Temple.
Some have speculated the disaster could be referring to the The Bar Kokhba revolt in 132.
And if this is when it was written then an entire field of study has just been chucked out the window.
All the things we have been obliged to swallow as ”given”, are not ”given” at all, and based on the evidence we do have, it could easily be stated that Jesus was simply a work of fiction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@gary
Any ‘world renowned scientist………’ is at the mercy of the Creator, and any ‘world renowned scientist’ worth his salt, will admit that his knowledge is limited.since..he was not there, in the beginning…………….
‘He made the stars also……………..’ So terse. So beautiful. So eloquent. So unassuming. So like God to explain the impossible in a few words.
Perhaps you should do your own research of God fearing bible believing scientists who have concluded using reason, logic, evidence, that the ONLY acceptable facts of life.are…..due to the Creator.
And by the way, just read the comments of the littlestonegod and see that NO information will be acceptable to a heart bent on opposition to the truth of God.
Now take this free gift and consider the ultimate truth that God is God, and you are not. He is the Creator, and you are the created. It would not kill you to give thanks for your own existence, and thank Him for a brain that was not given to hyenas.
And once more, the Nativity story is accurate.
LikeLike
And we also know the Emperor was aboard the star the Magi were following.
And we know this because … a great many Bothans died … to bring us this information. The question is, who the bloody hell told Matthew?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I once believed exactly as you do, CS, so I know your line of thinking well.
You cannot prove that the universe has not always existed; you cannot prove that there is a creator; you cannot prove that if there is a creator, that he is your god, Yahweh/Jesus. You believe these things as “fact” by faith (wishful thinking). You may continue your game of answering a question by using your well-worn circular argument, but why don’t you just be honest and admit that your entire belief system rests primarily on faith?
LikeLiked by 4 people
@gary
Let me politely correct you. You have never believed as I do, and you certainly do not know my line of thinking at all……
If you did, you would not trade truth for the idea that your kitchen table was the result of a serendipitious accident.,
Apart from the Creator, all your guesses are but dust in the wind. And once more, the narrative of scripture needs no defense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@CS, “You have never believed as I do”
Gary, I knew CS would pull the old, “you never really were a Christian” line.
Either that or he is saying (without realizing it) you never were as indoctrinated or delusional as he. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
@chief
Do you purposefully want to fuel a non existent fire?
There are no cookie cutter Christians, much to the chagrin of the atheist. But I can assure you, ‘they went OUT from us………….’ ‘They were not OF us.’
God’s words, not mine..
You may be able to interchange a battery with others in your world view, but I appreciate the idea of uniqueness.
LikeLike
Oh you are definitely unique, CS! Not to worry.
P.S. Wow! You actually used scripture!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Isn’t this about time the Dodo organizes a Caucus race?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually I am very happy that CS continues to use the fundamentalist Christian circular argument approach (my former belief system) and has not taken up moderate Christian apologetics. Why? Even though CS will never personally be defeated using this tactic, in the view of educated, younger generations of Christians his views and methodology are appallingly ignorant and empty. They will see right through it: a House of Cards. They will continue leaving this ancient superstition in droves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And what’s the evidence for this, CS? The thing is, none of us knows what the ultimate cause of the Universe is/was, so none of us can use it as evidence of anything. It’s simply an unknown.
Christianity offers an explanation for what started it all, but why should we believe it? When we investigate many of its other claims, they come up short, as my post about the birth narratives demonstrates.
LikeLike
I agree with you, but I think this illustrates my point even further. Hoffmeier sees a couple of clues that the writers intended their story to be taken as factual, so he takes the whole thing as factual. Some skeptics see that the archaeology doesn’t support the Exodus, so they say the whole thing is fiction. When we talk about the Exodus story, or even the gospels, the possibilities about the narratives are not just “fact” or “fiction.”
Let’s say that the evidence for the Exodus was better — that archaeology had uncovered evidence of a large migration of people from Egypt into Canaan roughly around the time expected if the Exodus story were true. Would this automatically mean that there were 10 literal plagues against Egypt and that the Red Sea literally split into two walls of water so the Israelites could cross on dry land? I would argue no.
We don’t have to take these narratives as all one thing or all another. There could easily be both fact and myth within them.
Think about the Arthur legends. The stories of King Arthur that we’re familiar with come from Geoffrey of Monmouth, about 600 years after Arthur would have lived (if he was real). There are some other references to the character that are older than that, but the stories aren’t as fleshed out. Most of the Arthurian legends are obviously myth: Merlin, the Lady in the Lake, Excalibur, etc. But it’s still possible that there really was a warlord named Arthur and that even the more fantastical elements of the stories could have been based on fanciful retellings of actual events.
Whether any of us believes there was a real person named Arthur doesn’t really matter. Maybe there was one — maybe there wasn’t. We’ll probably never know. The same can be said for Moses. Even though current archaeology suggests that the Exodus never happened at all, we still can’t say for sure that the stories don’t have any basis in truth. Maybe there was a minor chieftain named Moses at one point who helped deliver some of his people from a rival. Maybe not. Who knows?
One thing we do know from textual criticism is that the stories we have about Moses were written many centuries after he would have lived. Undoubtedly, there were oral traditions that were even older, but those are lost to us. So it’s impossible for us to know whether the stories are entirely myth or have some basis in history, even if only a little. The same can be said for Arthur.
But here, the New Testament stories about Jesus are a little different. You’re right that the Gospel of Mark could be fiction, but it’s written as though it’s not. It’s also true that there’s at least 40 years between the life of Jesus and gMark. But Paul’s writings seem to be closer, and we certainly can’t stretch the dates of these documents out centuries, because we have fragments of them that date early in the 2nd century. Furthermore, we know beyond a doubt that there were Christian communities in the 1st century. The proximity in dates between the time he was supposed to have lived in and the time in which we know people were worshiping him and writing about him is very short — much shorter than we have for the Exodus or for King Arthur.
So what’s the cause for these Christian communities? What’s the basis for Paul’s references? If Jesus was never a real person at all, then where did the idea of him come from? It certainly wasn’t the Gospel of Mark, and it certainly wasn’t Paul’s letters.
Of course, it’s possible that Jesus was only myth. But I think the current evidence indicates that there probably was such an individual. I think we should view the writings about him in the same way that we view other writings about individuals from that time: some basis in fact, some mythologized elements. To go beyond that and claim that every detail of every story is literally true would require much more evidence than we currently have. But by the same token, claiming that no elements of the stories are true should also require more evidence than we currently have.
Again, I haven’t dug into the claims of mythicists very deeply, so maybe they have more evidence than I’m aware of. But I still think that their position is the one that needs to be demonstrated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Nate
As the Exodus story is foundational to so much of the bible its veracity, or lack thereof, cannot be understated.
Any deviation from the bible story – and this is what skeptics such as myself try to always ensure is mentioned – undermines everything the bible claims, from Egyptian slavery to miracles to conquest.
Dever has suggested there may have been a small exodus of people. He could be right. Does this mean the believers now have the right to claim victory and jump and down and yell ”See! There was an Exodus.”
There is no evidence of an exodus on such a large scale. However,the evidence uncovered in Palestine does support an internal settlement pattern, even if we allow for some sort of minor exodus.
But we cannot simply disregard the findings of people like Kenyan and her work at Jericho in favour of literalists like Kitchen and evangelicals like Hoffmeir.
Or those who wish to redate the entire episode.
Christians who refuse to face up to the fact it is simply historical fiction are just fooling themselves; weaving a cocoon of denial in the hope they can find some way to make it balance itself or simply go away. Failing this, just cling to the belief that if it was all right for Jesus its all right for them. ”God’ll sort out those bloody atheists, wait and see!”
They are getting there, albeit slowly, but then they have a couple of thousand years of established doctrine to counter so, as they say when the phone is busy:
”Please be patient, your call will be answered.”
And we must find a new term for those who beleive the entire story is make beleive; mythicist has such a negative ”conspiracy theory” type tone to it.
Commonsensers, is far better.
Ark
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t entirely disagree with you, but this is how I see it:
Let’s say you ran across someone who believed in all the Arthurian legends and you (for whatever reason) wanted to convince them that they were mistaken. Would it be easier to focus on the magical parts of the story and establish how there’s not enough evidence to think that such fantastical things could occur, or easier to convince them that Arthur and Merlin and Lancelot were never real people to begin with? To me, it requires much more evidence and argumentation to establish the latter than it does the former.
LikeLike
Sorry, I also meant to add something about this:
Well, I would agree that the gospels are historical fiction, but that’s not the same as complete myth. I’m afraid if we try to push for myth without incredibly strong evidence, we’ll seem unreasonable.
And I have a lot of sympathy with the point you’re making about Christians saying “since Jesus believed the OT, it must be true.” Drives me crazy. But I think reasonable believers could come to see that the quotes attributed to Jesus in the NT may not necessarily be accurate sooner than they would accept that Jesus never existed at all. Again, if the evidence ever clearly shows that he couldn’t have existed, then we should be up front about that, but it’s my understanding that such a day hasn’t come yet.
LikeLike
Nate/Ark I find this an interesting discussion.
I have mentioned to Ark in the past that the evidence for the Exodus is entirely circumstantial. I agree with Nate’s argument that it is better to argue from a position of strength that the story as told in the Bible cannot have happened than to argue it is 100% fiction.
The numbers involved in the story cause great consternation to the modern Biblical scholars (those who want to believe but who also want to be honest). The basic consensus of the scholars is that there is no acceptable theory that can make sense of the numbers of people recorded in these stories, they are just way too large. Some have argued that the Hebrew term for ‘thousand’ could mean a smaller group like ‘clan’, but this falls down in various parts of the text so would have to be applied selectively.
Now large numbers is just the sort of thing one would expect if there was a legendary event that was embellished with retelling. It is what we would expect from a human story, but not what we expect from the testimony of a ‘God’ who claims to only ever tell the ‘truth’.
The recent theory that made most sense to me was that proposed by (I think it was Finklestein), that the tribe of Levi were latecomers to Israel from Egypt who brought some of their stories with them. So we have three main traditions:
– The Jacob/David tradition from Judah;
– The Joseph tradition from Israel;
– The Levi tradition from Egypt.
These got melded together after the fall of Israel/Samaria when refugees from the large, more advanced Israel fled to the back water of Judah and the traditions were mixed, but the Judah folk had the whip hand (which explains why the rat bag David is a hero, while Saul of the northern kingdom is delegitimized). But I should add this is all just a theory.
Needless to say the Moses tradition came from the Levi source.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“since Jesus believed the OT, it must be true.”
Nate a few years back I read a book entitles ‘Did Adam and Eve really exist and should we care?’. It was a book written from a Christian perspective by an academic but with a Christian lay person in mind. In essence the argument came down to because Jesus believed Adam and Eve existed then Christians should do so also.
I read this book whilst still a person of faith and remember being disturbed by it as the book included a lot of scientific evidence that argued against Adam and Eve. As far as I could tell the scientific evidence was presented fairly which meant the author was left with two conflicting evidence sources, the Bible and Christianity. The author argued that Christians could have seen the Adam and Eve story as a sort of pious myth if not for the references to the stories as ‘fact’ by Jesus and Paul.
So I ended up reading a book where 90% of the evidence presented was contrary to the conclusion. What the book really showed me at the time (when still a believer) was that evidence outside the Bible almost wholly contradicted the Bible.
I think these factors help explain why I deconverted in an instant, as soon as I dared to consider the possibility that the Bible might not be divine, all these previous matters that had been built up in my cognitive dissonance file burst through my mind like a water breaching a dam.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hi Peter,
When I was really struggling with all the new information I was finding out about the Bible, one of the preachers that I had always admired and that was considered an expert was kind enough to correspond with me. When one of his main arguments ended up being “well Jesus believed Daniel [and the rest of the OT] were real historical figures, so…” I simply couldn’t believe it. That was the first time I ran across it, and I was just flabbergasted. It seemed like the most ridiculous defense imaginable. I mean, I was already questioning the legitimacy of the Bible — to point to another part of the Bible and talk about how much it supported the other part as evidence was probably the stupidest thing I had ever heard. My respect for the man immediately took a nosedive.
And like you, I think it was one of the things that sped up my deconversion. If inerrantists had no better evidence than that, then they really had no case at all.
LikeLike
Thx for your post brother nate. Still trying to get thru all the comments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, good luck! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
“When one of his main arguments ended up being “well Jesus believed Daniel [and the rest of the OT] were real historical figures, so…””
Hi Nate, I share some of your disappointment here.If one reads the NT with an open and enquiring mind, it is clear (at any rate it became clear to me decades ago) that Jesus and his fellow first century Jews often used less than literal interpretations of OT passages. One obvious example is John 10:34-36, where Jesus uses a quite fanciful interpretation of Psalm 82 to make an argument. It is obvious he is using a rhetorical technique rather than a literal interpretation. There are many other examples.
A while back now I did some reading on this matter and found out it was a common approach, called either midrash or pesher interpretation. You will be familiar with it from reading Peter Enns. So what I had noticed from normal reading was explained by those who had studied the matter more thoroughly.
I am disappointed that so many Bible teachers haven’t noticed this, or investigated it, and thus say things like your preacher did that are quite problematic. I don’t think either believers or non-believers should use arguments that ignore such clear scholarly findings.
LikeLiked by 1 person