Jesus' birth in Matthew and Luke

I've often been told that the Bible contains "no contradictions", and that any that are found are not contradictions, but are metaphors or to be otherwise interpreted in a non literal fashion.

With this in mind, I ask the following:

In the gospel of Matthew, Jesus is born during the reign of King Herod, who lived from 73 BCE – 4BCE (or 73 BC - 4 BC), which means the latest Jesus could have been born is 4 BCE (or 4 BC).

Matthew 2(New International Version)

1After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi[a] from the east came to Jerusalem 2and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east[b] and have come to worship him."

In the gospel of Luke, Jesus is born during the census taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, which occurred in 6 CE (or 6 AD).

Luke 2(New International Version)

1In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3And everyone went to his own town to register.
4So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Now, if we take the Bible as being inspired by God, but not literally true, then there is no problem. But, if we take the Bible as being literally true, and completely inerrant, we run into a problem. These markers - Herod and the census, have very different historical dates, that do not overlap. It is unfathomable, at least to me, that one was being "metaphorical" when giving the details/date of the birth of Jesus.

So, I have to ask, how these are not contradictions? How can both be literally true and correct? Why would God inspire Matthew and Luke to give two different historical dates for the birth of Jesus, if He intended the Bible to be inerrant?

Can anyone offer some insight as to how these two accounts can both be factually correct, which is necessary for inerrancy to be the case? Or, offer some insight as to how one account could be metaphorical and not intended to be taken literally?

C.

Quoting God:“ I've often been told that the Bible contains "no contradictions", and that any that are found are not ... [snip!] ... to be the case? Or, offer some insight as to how one account could be metaphorical and not intended to be taken literally? C.”

hmm. that's weird. at mass once last year, the priest specifically mentioned
that they would be focusing on [blank's] gospels (not sure which of the 4) this liturgical year and that his gospels were noted for their differences.

i'm not sure what to say, then, in regards to the contradictions you note because i was of the mind that the contradictions were well-known.

ETA-- i wish i could remember what the priest's comments were on said differences, because i believe they mentioned these passages. sorry.   i wish i could provide what the argument/justification is for that position.

I searched Ceasar Augustus and found that he lived from 63 BC to 14 AD. He was alive the same time as King Herod according to your dates of when King Herod lived. I don't see the problem.

Quoting Talena:“ I searched Ceasar Augustus and found that he lived from 63 BC to 14 AD. He was alive the same time as King Herod according to your dates of when King Herod lived. I don't see the problem.”

The census took place in 6 CE. It specifically says that Joseph went to Bethlehem to register for the census.

6 CE is 10 years after the death of Herod.

C.

My parents have always said that it's beacuse of the translation from the origional language that the bible was written in to english. But iv never bothered t=looking into those kinda things, so who knows, just putting my input in.

Because news traveled slow back then. They didn't have the internet at their fingertips. By the time the Magi finally got to Matthew (I believe Jesus was already an adult by then) the story of his birth might have been skewed a bit.

Quoting KSmith:“ Because news traveled slow back then. They didn't have the internet at their fingertips. By the time ... [snip!] ... Magi finally got to Matthew (I believe Jesus was already an adult by then) the story of his birth might have been skewed a bit.”

Then if it was skewed, it's not inerrant.

C.

Quoting God:“ Then if it was skewed, it's not inerrant. C.”

I still don't think that keeps the Bible from being inerrant. Just means the magi was misinformed. The point of the story is that he came to find Jesus after seeing the star.

I've often asked these questions myself

Quoting KSmith:“ I still don't think that keeps the Bible from being inerrant. Just means the magi was misinformed. The point of the story is that he came to find Jesus after seeing the star.”

because it is an error

Easy....
After the widely known King Herod died, his land was split between his three sons Herod Antipas (who took Galilee, which is the region Christ was in), Philip, and Archelaus. The "time of King Herod" may have easily been referred to in speaking of the well-known King Herod...or his son Herod Antipas, who ruled the region of Galilee during Augusts' census.

Quoting ~Kat~:“ because it is an error”

It is not an error of the bible. If that is the magi's account, the person writing cannot change his story to match Luke's version. As long as the magi was correctly quoted, even if he was misinformed, the bible is still without flaw.

Quoting KSmith:“ Because news traveled slow back then. They didn't have the internet at their fingertips. By the time ... [snip!] ... Magi finally got to Matthew (I believe Jesus was already an adult by then) the story of his birth might have been skewed a bit.”

Exactly. Things took time back then. It would have taken YEARS to completley finish a whole census of the Roman Empire. Here's what I found.
"The three empire-wide censuses were in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14 A.D. In all probability the one in 8 B.C. is the one the Luke mentions in the Christmas story. Even though scholarship normally dates Christ's birth between 4 and 7 B.C., the 8 B.C. census fits because in all likelihood it would have taken several years for the bureaucracy of the census to reach Palestine."

I am sorry that you are dead set on finding contradictions and errors within the bible. I hope that you will one day have faith in it.

Quoting KSmith:“ I still don't think that keeps the Bible from being inerrant. Just means the magi was misinformed. The point of the story is that he came to find Jesus after seeing the star.”

How is it not inerrant?

People say that God directly inspired the writers. If so, then there should be no contradiction.

C.

Quoting KSmith:“ It is not an error of the bible. If that is the magi's account, the person writing cannot change his ... [snip!] ... to match Luke's version. As long as the magi was correctly quoted, even if he was misinformed, the bible is still without flaw.”

but is an account contained within the bible that people are taught to take as "fact"....so if one person is misinformed, everyone is misinformed, therefore it is an error.