Where did the wise men find Jesus?

a reply to: ChesterJohn
"You will meet two men by Rachel's tomb in the territory of Benjamin, at Zelzah"- 1 Samuel ch10 v2
Evidently there was another "Bethlehem" in Benjamin, which would have been the real tomb location. Rachel died in the act of giving birth to Benjamin, so it was only natural that she should be buried on the spot, in the area eventually allocated to him. Her sister's son (Judah) would not venerate her tomb in quite the same way.

a reply to: DISRAELI

There it is the opinion that you are forcing onto God's words "Evidently there was another" This is you being the Authority and changing and preserving God's word. It is a lack of faith in God's word that causes men to do this.

The Scriptures tells us it is the Bethlehem, if there had been another, like in all duplicate named cities found in the KJV (not sure about the versions you read) it would say something like "Bethlehem in Ephraim or in Judah or in Dan" but it doesn't any where in the Holy KJV Bible. The Gospel books tell us this is the correct Bethlehem by connecting Rachel with it and this is located just south of Jerusalem. Even today the southern part of Jerusalem has an area called Ramat Rachel which is an area that overlooks Bethlehem and the tomb of Rachel.

The issue is not there being two Bethlehem's or with God's words. The issue is your belief of what the Bible says, where it says it and how it says it. Like I have said many time in many ways "Anything but believe the words of God".

Merry Christmas!

a reply to: DISRAELI

The Bible does never once says "Bethlehem" in Benjamin. The tomb of Rachel is not said to be in Bethlehem but near it, actually it is only 1.7 miles from Bethlehem. So it is not in Bethlehem but on the road to Bethlehem just like the Bible says it is. I think many mistake Bethel for Bethlehem or maybe the New Bethlehem of Galilee. But the Bible in the gospels and concerning Rachel's burial place is south of Jerusalem the Bethlehem where Jesus was born the city of David.

You failure is in reading the Bible without adding to it a pre-contextualized idea or opinion. Doing so makes the Bible subjective to your idea or opinion.

Luke tells us that Joseph and Mary traveled from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea, south of Jerusalem. There Jesus was born in a stable and laid in a manger. Through an angel Jehovah God announced the birth to shepherds, who were to find the “infant [Greek, brephos]” in Bethlehem. On the eighth day Joseph and Mary had Jesus circumcised. At the end of the required 40-day purification period, they “brought the young child [Greek, paidion]” to the temple in Jerusalem. There Simeon and the prophetess Anna saw Jesus.​—Luke 2:1-38; Lev. 12:2-4.

The very next verse in Luke’s account, Luke 2:39, adds: “So when they had carried out all the things according to the law of Jehovah, they went back into Galilee to their own city Nazareth.” But what about the ‘three wise men’? When did they visit Jesus, and where?

Matthew relates that “after Jesus had been born in Bethlehem” some men came to Jerusalem from the East. Tradition holds that there were three of them (possibly because they had three kinds of gifts​—gold, frankincense, myrrh). But the Bible does not say that. Nor does it term them “kings.” Rather, it calls them magoi (related to the English word “magician”). (Matt. 2:1) Rather than this meaning “wise men,” Professor A. T. Robertson explains:

“Here in Matthew the idea seems to be rather that of astrologers. Babylon was the home of astrology.”​—Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 15.

Matthew tells us that after stopping in Jerusalem and conferring with King Herod, these astrologers went on “to Bethlehem.” Once having presented their gifts, they were to return and let Herod know the child’s whereabouts. But God intervened, causing the astrologers to take another route. Then he told Joseph to flee to Egypt because Herod wanted to destroy Jesus.​—Matt. 2:1-15.

In the light of what Matthew and Luke say, one may wonder just when the astrologers visited Jesus. It is not reasonable that it was during the 40-day purification period, for Luke assures us that the family went to Jerusalem at the end of that time. But Matthew says that right after the astrologers’ visit Joseph fled with his family to Egypt. Hence, it seems that after presenting the child at the temple in Jerusalem the family returned to Bethlehem with plans to settle in King David’s city from where the Messiah was to come, and there were visited later by the astrologers.

Matthew 2:11 tells us that when the astrologers “went into the house they saw the young child.” So Joseph, Mary and Jesus were by this time living in a house, not in a stable as is often depicted erroneously. Also, Matthew used the Greek word paidion, which can apply to a newborn infant (John 16:21) or to a more advanced child, such as one able to speak and play games outside. (Luke 7:32) Hence, Jesus could then have been many months in age.

Indicating that he was no longer a newborn is the fact that when the astrologers did not return Herod ordered the killing of “all the boys in Bethlehem and in all its district . . . from two years of age and under, according to the time that he had carefully ascertained from the astrologers.” (Matt. 2:16) The evidence is that Jesus was born about October 1, 2 B.C.E., and that Herod died in 1 B.C.E. or early 1 C.E. Thus Jesus could have been even a year or more old when the astrologers came. Possibly they came from as far east as the region of Babylon, on a journey that could have taken several months. Calculating from when the “star” appeared to them in the east, Herod may have included ample time so as to be sure that Jesus would be killed.

Why, then, does Luke 2:39 read as if Joseph took the family right from Jerusalem to Nazareth without going back to Bethlehem?

It appears that Luke simply omits the intervening events (the return from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, the astrologers’ visit and the flight to Egypt), even as Matthew says nothing of the shepherds or the trip to Jerusalem where Simeon and Anna saw Jesus. Certainly the astrologers did not visit Jesus in Nazareth, for Matthew says otherwise; and in Nazareth Jesus would not have been endangered by an order to kill children in ‘Bethlehem and its districts.’

a reply to: whereislogic

I noticed Disraeli used the same title you used from your JW propaganda. Coincidence I think not.

No bible had Jehovah in any Text prior to the NWT of 1950.

Nothing you really added says much different than what the KJV 1611 already says clearly including that Jesus was not born on Dec 25th. The only thing added is the word Jehovah.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: whereislogic

I noticed Disraeli used the same title you used from your JW propaganda. Coincidence I think not.

No bible had Jehovah in any Text prior to the NWT of 1950.

Not sure if the title you are referring to there is "Jehovah", but "Jehovah" is primarily a name. "Lord" or "King" are titles. Perhaps you were referring to the expression "Jehovah God"? Anyway, I have not seen DISRAELI ever talking about "Jehovah" or "Jehovah God" of his own accord by using that name (he may use the name in response to me now and then, but he generally doesn't speak about "Jehovah", and I searched the first 2 pages for that name and "Jehovah" wasn't mentioned by anyone here).

"Jehovah" is mentioned in your preferred KJV however (including the 1611 edition). And since you are very well aware of that, it's a little odd for you to say that "No bible had Jehovah in any Text prior to the NWT of 1950."

When you know that that isn't true, and you know that I know that you know that that isn't true. “A faithful witness is one that will not lie, but a false witness launches forth mere lies,” says Proverbs 14:5. “A false witness that launches forth lies, and anyone sending forth contentions among brothers,” are mentioned among the things that “Jehovah” hates and are “detestable to his soul” at Proverbs 6:19. And the KJV isn't the only Bible prior to 1950 that uses "Jehovah" (or similar spellings) as the divine name, i.e. the name of God (for those interested, see the article at the end of this comment, which also has some examples of similar spellings; compare the dates with the "prior to 1950" claim made by ChesterJohn, they unequivocally prove this claim to be false, even if you only look at the examples with the exact spelling "Jehovah"; but I guess then someone might conveniently change the argument and claim into 'No bible had Jehovah ... prior to the NWT of 1950 at Luke 2:39', or something like that rather than the expression "in any Text"; doesn't really erase the earlier misleading claim that is false the way it was phrased first. What may be of interest regarding this altered potential claim, are the Translations and Reference Works Supporting the Use of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” listed in appendix C4 of the NWT):


It's a bit like how the person with the youtube accountname Oct31st1517 argues about "there was no one BEFORE the New Word Translation that translated John 1:1 the word was a god" (below at 6:32). When that also isn't true.

And it reminds me of the way nikkie2christ behaves regarding that name below:


English Translations That Use God’s Name

I am the Lorde, and I appeared unto Abraham Isaac and Iacob an allmightie God: but in my name Iehouah was I not knowne unto them.—Exodus 6:2, 3, Five Books of Moses, translated by William Tyndale (1530).

That they maie knowe that thou, which art called Iehouáh, art alone, euen the moste High ouer all the earth.—Psalm 83:18, Geneva Bible (1560).

That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.‌—Psalm 83:18, King James Version (1611).

And they shall know that thou, thy name Jehovah alone, the Most High over all the earth.‌—Psalm 83:18, The Holy Bible, translated by Julia E. Smith (1876).

That they may know that thou alone, whose name is JEHOVAH, art the Most High over all the earth.‌—Psalm 83:18, English Revised Version (1885).

That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, art the Most High over all the earth.‌—Psalm 83:18, The Holy Scriptures, translated by J. N. Darby (1885).

And they know that Thou‌—(Thy name is Jehovah‌—by Thyself,) art the Most High over all the earth!‌—Psalm 83:18, Young’s Literal Translation (1887).

That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, art the Most High over all the earth.‌—Psalm 83:18, American Standard Version (1901).

... [whereislogic: I'll skip the the examples from after 1950; remember, this list is by no means comprehensive as in complete, many more examples could be given]

Translations that use spellings other than “Jehovah”

That men may know that thou whose Name alone is Yahweh art Most High over all the earth.‌—Psalm 83:18, The Emphasised Bible, translated by Joseph Rotherham (1897).

So that men may see that you only, whose name is Yahweh, are Most High over all the earth.‌—Psalm 83:18, The Bible in Basic English (1949).

...

a reply to: whereislogic

Sorry but Jehovah does not appear in any text until after 1950. Therefore it is a false teaching.

Proverbs 26:11

Like a dog that returns to its vomit,

The stupid one repeats his foolishness.

2 Peter 2:22

What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog has returned to its own vomit, and the sow that was bathed to rolling in the mire.”

John 8:44

You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a murderer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie.

a reply to: whereislogic

The truth is not in JW Watchtower or AWAKE magazines it is not in their NWT a JW Bible, that JW seldom use anymore. There is not truth nor salvation in them or your cults religion or in you version of Jehovah, Salvation in this age is only in Christ Jesus who is not a begotten god, but God on the flesh.