rhutchin

I can see where you might draw that conclusion. However, it would be better to think that the term refers specifically to the law given to Moses by God and not necessarily to the Torah which merely contained that information amongst other information. The issue then is whether a generic term, "law of the Lord," could have been used that people understood to refer to any and all laws given not just to Moses but also as supplemented by commands given by God to any other prophet.

The evidence of the Bible is not clear on this issue, and this requires that you assume something that I don't think you have to assume.

rhutchin

In context, Luke says, "Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover." They would have done this while living in Bethlehem or Nazareth. If this practice held even with the trip to Egypt, it suggests (because that explicit information is not provided) that the time spent in Egypt was short, and at least less than one year. Or, maybe they were to Jerusalem from Egypt and returned to Egypt afterwards. Nothing is really precluded from happening.

Good point. Luke is careful to give the reader specific time information as you note. In the contested language, Luke does not do so suggesting that he allows for something else to be happening or timing is not really relevant. Nonetheless, Luke says that, in all that was happening, Joseph and Mary still went to Jerusalem for Passover every year.

rhutchin

I agree that Luke refers to the rituals he listed. The issue is whether Luke listed some things as examples of the "law of the Lord" or whether he actually meant to list all of the instances where Joseph and Mary kept the law of the Lord. Does Occam's Razor tell us what Luke meant?

So you assume that he did not. Either way, a person must assume something since Luke does not explain what he meant.

rhutchin

One does not have to presuppose inerrancy in this case. In essence, we have two historical accounts, each of which gives us different information about those events surrounding the birth of Christ. Unless we have reason to conclude that one account is erroneous, we should conclude that they complement each other.

Johnny Skeptic

But you presuppose inerrancy in many other cases, an example being your absurd claim that a global flood occured. No rational person would believe that a global flood occured. How many false claims should it take to discredit a religious book?

Kasper

This is just silly.

Kasper

More important.. How much evidence does it take for creationists and religious people in general to accept the fact that their myths most probably are wrong? I'm suspecting that the only thing that would make them reject their faith is a live video recording of every corner of the universe since the big bang. And even if we had such a tape, and were able to look through it all, I'm afraid they would come up with some other nonsense to reject the evidence. "But Satan made that tape...."

Amaleq13

OK but I don't see how that helps your case.

But, even accepting your suggested alternative interpretation, it is not a "generic term" but one that is very specific. :huh:

That's just wishful thinking unless you have evidence to support the conjecture, I'm afraid.

Amaleq13

And we do have reason to reach this conclusion. One says the family went to Egypt before changing their home from Bethlehem to Nazareth while the other says they returned to Nazareth where they already lived.

Only faith that the accounts somehow agree despite the obvious incompatibilities provides a "reason" to avoid them.

rhutchin

So, who can we ask, since no one today really knows the mind of Luke or the early Christians and how they might have understood the term. The Jews were notorious for misunderstanding the Scriptures, so we can't ask them.