I am curious what your opinion is on these scriptures. From what I gather, most of the world believes there is an apparent contradiction and error in them. What do you say?

"In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah," Luk 1:5

"In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria." Luk 2:1,2

For context, Herod died in 4 BCE, and Quirinius was governor in 6 CE.

 

Greetings, brother.

Did you know the traditional dating of Jesus's birth comes from Josephus mentioning a lunar eclipse in Jerusalem?

19th-century scholars such as Édouard Caspari and Florian Riess discovered a partial eclipse in 4 BC. They attributed Jesus' birth to this year, even though it was likely not viable.

Then, no lunar eclipse was visible until two in the year 1 BC, one of which was a total eclipse.

There is no reason not to believe the year 1 BC, which Dionysius Exiguus calculated, is in the sixth century. And I agree that 1 BC is the most likely year of Christ's birth, as 1 AD commenced shortly after. Exiguus says seven days after.

That puts His ministry beginning about 28 AD and Cornelius' baptism in 35 AD. And as the link you shared mentions, no one knows what census is even spoken of. It could have been any number of census years. And who knows what governmental roles Quirinius might have held throughout his life.

All love...

Joshua

 

Also, it's interesting how the word "first" appears in Luke 2:2. It could be written as when Quirinius was first governing. Other than that, what is the "first" for?

Joshua

 

Well, isn't that interesting... I had even looked at the Interlinear and hadn't noticed the alternate definition of the Greek word prótos. This makes sense to me because I couldn't justify why the word first existed in the text. Usually, Scripture will not contain an open-ended subject matter. It will explain how something is first. Just like in our writing today you never use firstly or secondly without using both.

And this page points out precisely what I was saying above. That makes complete sense.

Along with the other links you shared, it seems obvious to me that this, indeed, is the intended meaning of prótos within the context of Luke 2:2

Thanks, brother...

Joshua