Yeah, like verse 23 (which you skip) which says
"It is written in the Law of the Lord, 'Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called HOLY to the Lord"
"Nice" teaching. LOL! Do you believe firstborn males are holy to God but firstborn females are not???? How Christ-like is that?
Irishtenor: Surely Simeon and Anna knew the scriptures, and were waiting for their fulfillment. They recognized Christ AS AN INFANT!!!!!!!!!!! They knew who he was and what he was BEFORE he did anything.
Did you look at the references where Luke got this story from? From other Gospels! A little from here and a little from there! Nice story. But not an eyewitness. It certainly serves well to bolster the agenda, however.
And since we are on Luke, when was Jesus born? According to Matthew (2:1) and Luke (1:5), it was 4 B.C. because that was the year of Herod the Great's death.
But then Luke only a chapter later changes the story (2:1), and says He was born when Quirinius was the governed of the region, and he didn't become the governor of the region until 6 A.D. Some Protestants argue that (o tempora o moris!) that this is a translational error and that the copiers of the Bible were not inspired and therefore not free form error!
Thanks for (finally) admitting that we read error-filled copies of the originals.
Trouble is, such errors change the meaning. The argument says that protos can be "before" rather than "first." there is some truth in that, but there is a difference between ordinal numbers (grammatically) and temporal adjectives.
All translations indicate that it was a temporal number, first (as in the first time), not as in before. Wether that is what the original Acts say or not is a different story.
That's how the the Church read it and how it is translated in all the major Bibles. Ooops. Houston, we have a problem, bleep.
Another question is why did Mary have to be purified (Luke 2:22) since she was not defiled? Another question is how could Simeon be a just man when Paul says otherwise? (cf. Ecc 7:20) The rest of the Bible shows them to be in conflict (Gen 6:9, Ps 37:12, Prov 4:18, 9:9, 10:6, 10:20, 11:9, 12:13, 21, 17:15, 26, 20:7, 21: 15, 24:16, 29:10, Ecc 7:16 [and 7:0 says the opposite], 8:14, Isa 26:7, Lam 4:13, Eze 18:5-6, 9, Hos 14:9, Amos 5:12, Hab 2:4, Matt 1:19, 5:45, 13:49, Mark 6:20, Luk 1:17, 2:25, 14:14, 15:7, 23:50, Act 10:22, and 2 Pet 2:7).
In Luk 2:33 some "scribes" have changed the older versions that say "this child's father and mother" to "and Joseph and this child's mother..." so as to avoid any reference to Joseph as the Child's father, as some authors must have believed.
Thus, KJV says "And Jose and his mother marvelled.." but the Greek text says pathr (pater, father). Nothing like a little "touch up" choreography for effect! :)
I am sorry, but the credibility of any of this is really thin. But I guess it served the purpose.
How could they know what was promised UNLESS they knew scripture?
Indeed, how would one know if one didn't read critically what the various authors wrote and only accepted the "authorized" version of the truth?
So much for solo Scripture! The new NIV's are a total mess and are purposely translated in error by the people at Harper Zondervan
In regards to the accusation of Luke being contradictory in the timeline of Christ’s birth, this has been well studied and rigorously explained by many others.
One such study is provided below from http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html
There are two main interpretations of this MS: one is that it refers to Q. Varus (placing Quirinius as a procurator during the birth of Christ), and the other that it refers to Quirinius himself.
The first option is defended by Ernest Martin in CKC:90:
” A Latin inscription found in 1764 about one-half mile south of the ancient villa of Quintilius Varus (at Tivoli, 20 miles east of Rome) states that the subject of the inscription had twice been governor of Syria. This can only refer to Quintilius Varus, who was Syrian governor at two different times. Numismatic evidence shows he ruled Syria from 6 to 4 B.C., and other historical evidence indicates that Varus was again governor from 2 B.C. to A.D. I. Between his two governorships was Sentius Saturninus, whose tenure lasted from 4 to 2 B.C. Significantly, Tertullian (third century) said the imperial records showed that censuses were conducted in Judea during the time of Sentius Saturninus. (Against Marcion 4:7). Tertullian also placed the birth of Jesus in 3 or 2 B.C. This is precisely when Saturninus would have been governor according to my new interpretation. That the Gospel of Luke says Quirinius was governor of Syria when the census was taken is resolved by Justin Martyr’s statement (second century) that Quirinius was only a procurator (not governor) of the province (Apology 1:34). In other words, he was simply an assistant to Saturninus, who was the actual governor as Tertullian stated.”
The second option is favored by William Ramsey (NBD, s.v. “Quirinius”):
“The possibility that Quirinius may have been governor of Syria on an earlier occasion (*Chronology of the NT) has found confirmation in the eyes of a number of scholars (especially W. M. Ramsay) from the testimony of the Lapis Tiburtinus (CIL, 14. 3613). This inscription, recording the career of a distinguished Roman officer, is unfortunately mutilated, so that the officer’s name is missing, but from the details that survive he could very well be Quirinius. It contains a statement that when he became imperial legate of Syria he entered upon that office ‘for the second time’ (Lat. iterum). The question is: did he become imperial legate of Syria for the second time, or did he simply receive an imperial legateship for the second time, having governed another province in that capacity on the earlier occasion?...The wording is ambiguous. Ramsay held that he was appointed an additional legate of Syria between 10 and 7 bc, for the purpose of conducting the Homanadensian war, while the civil administration of the province was in the hands of other governors, including Sentius Saturninus (8-6 bc), under whom, according to Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4. 19), the census of Lk. 2:1ff. was held.
Under either of these scenarios, SOMEONE served twice, and under either of these scenarios, Quirinius could EASILY have been responsible for the census.
And curiously enough, even if that were NOT the case somehow, the linguistic data of the last few decades indicates that Luke 2.1 should be translated ‘BEFORE the census of Quirinius’ instead of the customary ‘FIRST census of Quirinius’—see Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, T&T Clark: 1966, pp. 23,24 and Syntax, p. 32. This would ‘solve the problem’ without even requiring two terms of office for Q.
And, while we are talking about Greek here...the term Luke uses for Quirinius’ ‘governorship’ is the VERY general term hegemon, which in extra-biblical Greek was applied to prefects, provincial governors, and even Caesar himself. In the NT it is similarly used as a ‘wide’ term, applying to procurators—pilate, festus, felix—and to general ‘rulers’ (Mt 2.6). [The New Intl. Dict. of New Test. Theology (ed. Brown) gives as the range of meaning: “leader, commander, chief” (vol 1.270)...this term would have applied to Quirinius at MANY times in his political career, and as a general term, Syria would have had several individuals that could be properly so addressed at the same time. Remember, Justin Martyr called him ‘procurator’ in Apology 1:34, which is also covered by this term.] My point is...nothing is really out of order here...