Can the Christmas stories be reconciled?

[A_Thinker]

No it would be because Bethlehem was in Israel and they want to go home. What the law requires must be done within a few weeks of Jesus' birth. It doesn't say that Nazareth was their home (like in Luke) which implies that Bethlehem was their home, even if they are renting.

Matthew makes no explicit statement regarding the Mary/Joseph/Jesus place of residence when the wise men come to visit.

Luke (who is believed to have interviewed Mary for his gospel) explicitly specifies that they were residing in Nazareth. There is no reason to suppose that Matthew would know better than Luke, as Luke seems to pride himself on getting the details right.

Luke 1

1 Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. 2 They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. 3 Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write an accurate account for you, most honorable Theophilus, 4 so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught.

 

[JohnClay]

Matthew makes no explicit statement regarding the Mary/Joseph/Jesus place of residence when the wise men come to visit.

Matthew 2:1,4-5:

"After Jesus was born in Bethlehem.... When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied"​

Luke (who is believed to have interviewed Mary for his gospel) explicitly specifies that they were residing in Nazareth.

Are you saying that Jesus, etc, were in Nazareth when the wise men visited?

 

[A_Thinker]

Matthew 2:1,4-5:
"After Jesus was born in Bethlehem.... When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied"

Jesus was born in Bethlehem ... no doubt about it.

Are you saying that Jesus, etc, were in Nazareth when the wise men visited?

Yes ... this is the current understanding. Mary, Joseph, and Jesus were residing in Nazareth by this time, in a house ...

 

[JohnClay]

Jesus was born in Bethlehem ... no doubt about it.

Are you saying that Jesus, etc, were in Nazareth when the wise men visited?

Yes ... this is the current understanding. Mary, Joseph, and Jesus were residing in Nazareth by this time, in a house ...

So then did they flee to Egypt from Nazareth?

Note:
King Herod "gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under"

After Egypt it says that Israel (Jerusalem/Bethlehem) wasn't safe so they decided to live in Nazareth (for what seems like the first time)

 

[JohnClay]

.....Matthew and Luke are around 15 years apart....

This is a minority opinion - the general consensus seems to be that they were written around the same time. Can you provide at least 2 or 3 sources that back up your opinion.

Here are some Christian sources that indicate they were written much less than 15 years apart:
Dating the New Testament - Matthew

we date Luke between 60-62 A.D...... The gospel of Matthew was likely completed before such a permanent breach was in sight. A date around 60 A.D. would seem reasonable

When were the gospels written and by whom? | CARM.org

Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62.....Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50. [still less than 12 years apart]

Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia

The most probable date for its composition is around AD 80–110

Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia

Most scholars believe it was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110 (a pre-70 date remains a minority view)

The Synoptic Gospels

View No. 1:
Mark written in the 50s or early 60s a.d.
(1) Matthew written in late 50s or the 60s
(2) Luke written 59–63 [less than 8 years apart]
View No. 2:
Mark written 65–70
(1) Matthew written in the 70s or later
(2) Luke written in the 70s or later

View No. 1:
Mark could have been written anytime between 50 and 70
View No. 2:
Mark written 65–70
(1) Matthew written in the 50s (see Introduction to Matthew: Date and Place of Writing)
(2) Luke written 59–63 (see Introduction to Luke: Date and Place of Writing) [less than 13 years apart]

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-130 Gospel of Luke

Those were the first few links that I looked up. They mostly don't support your assertion. Could it be that you mixed up Mark and Matthew/Luke? I mean some sources say that those were 15 years apart.

Do you accept that your view is a minority view and that most sources say they were a lot less than 15 years apart?

 

[Sanoy]

Server issues multiple posts.

 

[Sanoy]

Server issues

 

[Sanoy]

This is a minority opinion - the general consensus seems to be that they were written around the same time. Can you provide at least 2 or 3 sources that back up your opinion.

Here are some Christian sources that indicate they were written much less than 15 years apart:
Dating the New Testament - Matthew


When were the gospels written and by whom? | CARM.org


Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia

Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia


The Synoptic Gospels


Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers


Those were the first few links that I looked up. They mostly don't support your assertion. Could it be that you mixed up Mark and Matthew/Luke? I mean some sources say that those were 15 years apart.

Do you accept that your view is a minority view and that most sources say they were a lot less than 15 years apart?

15 is what showed up first as an estimation when I searched, I'm not standing on that as a fact, but on there being a gap for one author to know the other author. Everyone is going to have a different opinion on this because they are not C14 dated, but dated by historical reference. There simply is no date one can stand on. That is why you see so many dates in your survey. 15 years isn't the important part, that is just an estimation, the gap is what is important, and your survey provides that.

 

[JohnClay]

@Sanoy:
As you can see with the estimated dates of Matthew and Luke they generally are saying that those gospels were written around the same time. If they have a date range you can't just choose an early date for Matthew and a late date for Luke.

It seems some people believe that Luke was in fact based on Matthew, but here is the case against that:
So Luke did not know Matthew after all?

But let's just assume that Luke was aware of the genealogies in Matthew...

Then you'd need to explain why Luke's genealogies are virtually completely different to Matthew's.... though they agree with the names that are in the prophecies.

Would you say that Luke is giving Mary's genealogy? Then consider this: (by the publisher of the NIV, Zondervan)
Why Are Jesus' Genealogies in Matthew and Luke… | Zondervan Academic

".....One problem with this suggestion is that throughout Luke’s birth narrative, he stresses that Joseph is a descendent of David. He never mentions Mary’s Davidic descent. So, despite Luke’s emphasis on Mary in his birth narrative, it would be surprising if his genealogy is Mary's."

Since that explanation is so problematic another two theories are presented on that web page.

 

[Sanoy]

@Sanoy:
As you can see with the estimated dates of Matthew and Luke they generally are saying that those gospels were written around the same time. If they have a date range you can't just choose an early date for Matthew and a late date for Luke.

It seems some people believe that Luke was in fact based on Matthew, but here is the case against that:
So Luke did not know Matthew after all?

But let's just assume that Luke was aware of the genealogies in Matthew...

Then you'd need to explain why Luke's genealogies are virtually completely different to Matthew's.... though they agree with the names that are in the prophecies.

Would you say that Luke is giving Mary's genealogy? Then consider this: (by the publisher of the NIV, Zondervan)
Why Are Jesus' Genealogies in Matthew and Luke… | Zondervan Academic

".....One problem with this suggestion is that throughout Luke’s birth narrative, he stresses that Joseph is a descendent of David. He never mentions Mary’s Davidic descent. So, despite Luke’s emphasis on Mary in his birth narrative, it would be surprising if his genealogy is Mary's."

Since that explanation is so problematic another two theories are presented on that web page.

What do you mean by "around the same time"? Are they contemporary? Yes. But Luke trends to a later date, and as long as there is a reasonable time period for Luke , who is investigating the subject, to have reasonable access to it why would he contradict it? It can't be said of me that I can't cherry pick a date while a date is cherry picked in contradiction, both would be wrong. In any case I don't need to cherry pick one to stand on, because they mostly trend a gap that is worthwhile for consideration which we both seem to agree to some degree.

I don't think Luke is based on Matthew, I think it's aware of Matthew. It means nothing to seek out a particular claim and list it in contradiction because there is just so much out there to compare. There are numerous theories posed at the differences in the genealogies and gospels, each are possible but given the nature of history we may never solidly know. What matters is whether the positive claim that there is contradiction can be made. As I said at the beginning, a nominal claim of contradiction is overturned by a nominal claim of exception. Historical uncertainty is not just there for exception, it is also there for contradiction. So contradiction is not the ground floor, it must be achieved and it's a high pole to climb because it must consider historical uncertainty. It is for that reason so many choose to establish contradiction through motive, but those motives are equally dubious in claim.

 

[JohnClay]

@Sanoy:
So Luke did not know Matthew after all?

Side 1: Matthew and Luke used both Mark and Q.

Side 2: There was no Q: Matthew used Mark and Luke used both Matthew and Mark.

I think side 1 is correct and that explains why Matthew and Luke have different names in the genealogies.

You believe that Luke was fully aware of Matthew's genealogies. Why did he come up with a new genealogy? Do you believe that Luke wanted to show Mary's genealogy?

From the publisher of the NIV, Zondervan:
Why Are Jesus' Genealogies in Matthew and Luke… | Zondervan Academic

".....One problem with this suggestion is that throughout Luke’s birth narrative, he stresses that Joseph is a descendant of David. He never mentions Mary’s Davidic descent. So, despite Luke’s emphasis on Mary in his birth narrative, it would be surprising if his genealogy is Mary's."

Since that explanation is so problematic another two theories are presented on that web page.

 

[Sanoy]

@Sanoy:
So Luke did not know Matthew after all?

I think side 1 is correct and that explains why Matthew and Luke have different names in the genealogies.

You believe that Luke was fully aware of Matthew's genealogies. Why did he come up with a new genealogy? Do you believe that Luke wanted to show Mary's genealogy?

From the publisher of the NIV, Zondervan:
Why Are Jesus' Genealogies in Matthew and Luke… | Zondervan Academic

".....One problem with this suggestion is that throughout Luke’s birth narrative, he stresses that Joseph is a descendant of David. He never mentions Mary’s Davidic descent. So, despite Luke’s emphasis on Mary in his birth narrative, it would be surprising if his genealogy is Mary's."

Since that explanation is so problematic another two theories are presented on that web page.

I have no problem with side 1, I can't confirm or deny it because it is beyond my present life to achieve a firm position on that. So I won't dispute side 1, but side 1 is not mutually exclusive with Matthew being extant when Luke was writing his Gospel.

I don't know that Luke was fully aware of Matthew, no one knows that, nor can we, but I think it is reasonable to believe that Luke would have looked into Matthew if available given his opening about other multiple gospels being in existence, his plan to investigate the matter, the cost of such a work, the purpose in such a work given that other gospels exists (IE, why is he doing another one? to fill in blanks?) and the need to establish both heritages given the unique birth.

What this quote from Zondervan amounts to is a an argument from silence. It's not a bad point, but it's not a strong point either. That is the problem with this whole field, we want to make a lot from it, but what we have is mostly all that is available to us. And one perspective is just a drop of water in an ocean of perspectives each with their own strengths and weaknesses. I have even heard good cases that Matthew is Marys genealogy and not Luke. It is for those reasons that I make the case that I do, that a nominal contradiction is defeated by a nominal exception. Because it is too difficult to find any definite ground because the whole subject is a sea of islands, each representing ones perspective. Searching for one, and standing on it, doesn't help when there are so many places one can stand. What matters is whether the case can be made for contradiction, because if there is an exception, the case for contradiction fails. And I think there are exceptions.

When it comes to historical subjects where there can be a multitude of positions one can stand on, each with strengths and weakness, what you stand on really amounts to what you bring into the question. What you bring is the belief that Jesus's divinity is a myth. For me, Jesus's unique birth demands both genealogies, it's a question that demands an answer for both parents whether by invention or reality. I have encountered the living Christ and His Spirit teaches me who He is in the scriptures. From my experience with God I expect God to establish Himself both through Joseph, and Mary, whom God uniquely choose. I do no see Mary being left out of a purpose given her unique calling and virgin birth, either because of my trust in Christ to be a full part of our lives, or from the secular perspective - because it makes no sense to invent the virgin birth, which must have a narrative purpose, and then only give Josephs lineage. If the lineage is sufficient by Joseph, why invent the virgin birth? And if they invent the Virgin birth why not invent a genealogy that supports it rather than one that runs completely parallel to it? Each asks a question of the other that neither can answer. So now you know a little bit about why I come into this with the position I hold, both because of my relationship with the one in question, as well as secular logical reasons. I don't expect you to hold the former part of my reasons, my faith (trust), nor should you, just as I should not trust what you bring into the question, that Jesus is mytho-historical. So we are left with the text itself, and there seems to be no sustained claim to contradiction, and while "invention" may solve the question of whether you should consider Christ, it brings up more questions to the text than it answers.

 

[JohnClay]

I have no problem with side 1, I can't confirm or deny it because it is beyond my present life to achieve a firm position on that. So I won't dispute side 1, but side 1 is not mutually exclusive with Matthew being extant when Luke was writing his Gospel.

So Luke did not know Matthew after all?
Side 1 is saying Luke did not know about Matthew (see the title)

What this quote from Zondervan amounts to is a an argument from silence. It's not a bad point, but it's not a strong point either.

If Luke is trying to make the point that Mary was part of the genealogies and was a descendant of David I'd expect some kind of evidence for that. If it is not a strong point why did that explanation only originate many centuries after the gospels? There were other explanations that were thought up first.

....I have even heard good cases that Matthew is Marys genealogy and not Luke.

On the other hand I have a single explanation for why the genealogies are different. I thought having one possible explanation is better than many.

....What you bring is the belief that Jesus's divinity is a myth.

I think Jesus had some kind of connection with the divine - see:
Hearing songs with seemingly supernatural significance

....If the lineage is sufficient by Joseph, why invent the virgin birth?

Like I've been saying, there are many prophecies that the Messiah needs to fulfil. A virgin birth is one of them, that is why both gospels fulfil that prophecy.

And if they invent the Virgin birth why not invent a genealogy that supports it rather than one that runs completely parallel to it?

Mary's ancestors are irrelevant since the baby isn't from her DNA. Joseph's ancestors are relevant since he is Jesus' legal father. Originally the Christian explanation was that the genealogies were both based on Joseph.

....So we are left with the text itself, and there seems to be no sustained claim to contradiction, and while "invention" may solve the question of whether you should consider Christ, it brings up more questions to the text than it answers.

Your questions about my theory are easy to answer. Yours bring up many answers and questions - that Zondervan article brought up three possible theories, then you said "I have even heard good cases that Matthew is Marys genealogy and not Luke"...

 

[Sanoy]

So Luke did not know Matthew after all?
Side 1 is saying Luke did not know about Matthew (see the title)


If Luke is trying to make the point that Mary was part of the genealogies and was a descendant of David I'd expect some kind of evidence for that. If it is not a strong point why did that explanation only originate many centuries after the gospels? There were other explanations that were thought up first.


On the other hand I have a single explanation for why the genealogies are different. I thought having one possible explanation is better than many.


I think Jesus had some kind of connection with the divine - see:
Hearing songs with seemingly supernatural significance


Like I've been saying, there are many prophecies that the Messiah needs to fulfil. A virgin birth is one of them, that is why both gospels fulfil that prophecy.


Mary's ancestors are irrelevant since the baby isn't from her DNA. Joseph's ancestors are relevant since he is Jesus' legal father. Originally the Christian explanation was that the genealogies were both based on Joseph.


Your questions about my theory are easy to answer. Yours bring up many answers and questions - that Zondervan article brought up three possible theories, then you said "I have even heard good cases that Matthew is Marys genealogy and not Luke"...

I'm okay with the description you gave for side 1, that Matthew and Luke used Q and Mark, but not the further statement that Luke did not use Matthew. (For the reasons in my last post)

People noticed that the genealogies were different. One person proposes an explanation, and everyone's good with it, then much much later someone looks at it and proposes another explanation. It's order, and distance really has nothing to do with which explanation is true or not. Maybe the first explanation is right and this one is wrong, either way it is an exception to the claim of contradiction.

It's unclear to unlikely that there was a messianic expectation that the Messiah was to be born of a virgin. The word virgin in the prophecy you are thinking of is mostly meant for young woman, and was already fulfilled back when it was made. It was a dual prophecy, of something soon, and something later through the same statement. Given the first occurrence of the prophecy is already fulfilled it is unlikely that they were expecting this again, and if you ask any Jew today they will tell you the word means young woman (it can however mean virgin) and they are in no way expecting a virgin messiah. So the question that your hypothesis of invention asks is sustained.

The text doesn't tell us whether Jesus has Marys DNA, but it's readers didn't know what DNA was. They, and the author are likely going to attribute to Jesus what is attributed to all mothers sons, their eyes, their nose etc. Jesus is Fully God, Fully man so why wouldn't he have Marys DNA. Jesus shows up all throughout the OT with the appearance of a man, he doesn't need to be born at all if he wants to have his own "DNA". The only reason to come out of her is to come out of her line.

The only thing that matters to the case of contradiction is that there are not exceptions. It doesn't matter whether I have the best theory, or the only theory, or the earliest theory. If the case of contradiction cannot remove them all it does not stand.

 

[JohnClay]

.....People noticed that the genealogies were different. One person proposes an explanation, and everyone's good with it, then much much later someone looks at it and proposes another explanation. It's order, and distance really has nothing to do with which explanation is true or not. Maybe the first explanation is right and this one is wrong, either way it is an exception to the claim of contradiction...

You're probably claiming that the gospels were inspired by God. It seems odd to me that people would believe for centuries that Luke is the genealogy of Joseph if it is in fact the genealogy of Mary... or maybe Matthew is about the genealogy of Mary.... I thought God would make the true explanation for the genealogies clearer...

It's unclear to unlikely that there was a messianic expectation that the Messiah was to be born of a virgin. The word virgin in the prophecy you are thinking of is mostly meant for young woman, and was already fulfilled back when it was made.

I'm talking about the version of the prophecy that Matthew and Luke had in common - even if the original prophecy wasn't about being a virgin.

It was a dual prophecy, of something soon, and something later through the same statement. Given the first occurrence of the prophecy is already fulfilled it is unlikely that they were expecting this again, and if you ask any Jew today they will tell you the word means young woman (it can however mean virgin) and they are in no way expecting a virgin messiah. So the question that your hypothesis of invention asks is sustained.

So you're saying that the virgin prophecy might be an invention? My theory isn't concerned whether the prophecies the gospels share are inventions or not, just some of their fulfilments as mentioned in the gospels might be inventions.

The text doesn't tell us whether Jesus has Marys DNA, but it's readers didn't know what DNA was. They, and the author are likely going to attribute to Jesus what is attributed to all mothers sons, their eyes, their nose etc. Jesus is Fully God, Fully man so why wouldn't he have Marys DNA. Jesus shows up all throughout the OT with the appearance of a man, he doesn't need to be born at all if he wants to have his own "DNA".

I think the reason why Jesus isn't said to have inherited Original Sin is because he isn't a biological descendent of Adam.

The only reason to come out of her is to come out of her line.....

You're talking about your theory that Mary was a descendent of David. That doesn't have any Biblical support except that it is one possible explanation for the contradictory genealogies.

 

[Sanoy]

You're probably claiming that the gospels were inspired by God. It seems odd to me that people would believe for centuries that Luke is the genealogy of Joseph if it is in fact the genealogy of Mary... or maybe Matthew is about the genealogy of Mary.... I thought God would make the true explanation for the genealogies clearer...


I'm talking about the version of the prophecy that Matthew and Luke had in common - even if the original prophecy wasn't about being a virgin.


So you're saying that the virgin prophecy might be an invention? My theory isn't concerned whether the prophecies the gospels share are inventions or not, just some of their fulfilments as mentioned in the gospels might be inventions.


I think the reason why Jesus isn't said to have inherited Original Sin is because he isn't a biological descendent of Adam.


You're talking about your theory that Mary was a descendent of David. That doesn't have any Biblical support except that it is one possible explanation for the contradictory genealogies.

I did not say that the virgin prophecy was an invention. I believe they realized it was a dual layer prophecy. Original Sin didn't enter theology until several centuries later.

I have said quite a lot here, and I feel like I am just repeating myself so let me reiterate what I started with. A nominal claim to contradiction falls to a nominal claim to exception. What evidence/reason do you have that they are in contradiction, because it can't just be that they have different names.

 

[JohnClay]

...Original Sin didn't enter theology until several centuries later....

I'm not saying that the original prophecy had original sin in mind. I'm responding to "The only reason to come out of her is to come out of her line....."

I'm saying that the original reason why Mary was the mother was that in the story she is a virgin, not that she is from the line of David.

.....A nominal claim to contradiction falls to a nominal claim to exception. What evidence/reason do you have that they are in contradiction, because it can't just be that they have different names.

I'm saying that in a plain reading I can see a lot of contradictions (e.g. different sons for David, different fathers for Shealtiel, different sons for Zerubbabel, different fathers for Joseph, different journeys, different dates for the birth of Jesus, etc) but like BigV said in post #12, "I'm of the opinion that any contradiction can be reconciled"

BTW I read somewhere that someone believed that the early parts of Matthew were written later - so perhaps Luke was aware of most of Matthew except for the early parts. That explains why you believe some later parts of Luke seem to be aware of later parts of Matthew. It explains why Luke makes no mention of highly significant parts of early Matthew including the genealogies, the star, the wise men, King Herod's plan to kill all of those toddlers and babies, the escape to Egypt, all of the dreams, etc. Sorry I don't have further details of this possibility.

 

[Sanoy]

I'm not saying that the original prophecy had original sin in mind. I'm responding to "The only reason to come out of her is to come out of her line....."

I'm saying that the original reason why Mary was the mother was that in the story she is a virgin, not that she is from the line of David.


I'm saying that in a plain reading I can see a lot of contradictions (e.g. different sons for David, different fathers for Shealtiel, different sons for Zerubbabel, different fathers for Joseph, different journeys, different dates for the birth of Jesus, etc) but like BigV said in post #12, "I'm of the opinion that any contradiction can be reconciled"

BTW I read somewhere that someone believed that the early parts of Matthew were written later - so perhaps Luke was aware of most of Matthew except for the early parts. That explains why you believe some later parts of Luke seem to be aware of later parts of Matthew. It explains why Luke makes no mention of highly significant parts of early Matthew including the genealogies, the star, the wise men, King Herod's plan to kill all of those toddlers and babies, the escape to Egypt, all of the dreams, etc. Sorry I don't have further details of this possibility.

My response that "the only reason to come out of her is to come out of her line" is in reference to contemporary reasons for invention. Original sin is not a contemporary reason to invent a virgin birth.

Your observation that in a plain reading you can see a lot of 'apparent' contradictions is fine. But it's a raw thought, it can't be a claim that it is. The number of things that can be responsible for such a difference is enormous. We don't have the historical leverage to turn the thought into a claim. That has been my point here, if there are ways in which they can be different, then their difference isn't a reason.

 

[JohnClay]

My response that "the only reason to come out of her is to come out of her line" is in reference to contemporary reasons for invention.

Sorry I'm having trouble understanding you. By "contemporary" do you mean the writer of Luke? I don't think that "her line" is relevant at all - this is also the case for many explanations for Luke's genealogy which believe that Joseph is involved, not Mary.

Original sin is not a contemporary reason to invent a virgin birth.

The absence of Original Sin is an argument against the theory that Mary's genealogy is involved.

Your observation that in a plain reading you can see a lot of 'apparent' contradictions is fine.......

I think the contradictions are "apparent" contradictions in the same way that the following is an "apparent" contradiction: (see post #12 by BigV)

1. Jesus was born.
2. Jesus was not born.
....it can easily be reconciled. Maybe they are talking about different Jesus'? Different meanings of being 'born'? Perhaps different periods, where the 2nd one refers to an earlier time frame vs the 1st one, etc....

 

[Sanoy]

Sorry I'm having trouble understanding you. By "contemporary" do you mean the writer of Luke? I don't think that "her line" is relevant at all - this is also the case for many explanations for Luke's genealogy which believe that Joseph is involved, not Mary.


The absence of Original Sin is an argument against the theory that Mary's genealogy is involved.


I think the contradictions are "apparent" contradictions in the same way that the following is an "apparent" contradiction: (see post #12 by BigV)

1. Jesus was born.
2. Jesus was not born.
....it can easily be reconciled. Maybe they are talking about different Jesus'? Different meanings of being 'born'? Perhaps different periods, where the 2nd one refers to an earlier time frame vs the 1st one, etc....

By contemporary I mean around the same time period. Reasons at that time period to invent something. Why invent the virgin birth, or why have the virgin birth if Mary is not involved?

Original Sin makes the claim that Mary is needed, but that was centuries later, so it is not a source of invention.

It's very obvious that they are different, but it's not obvious that there is a contradiction because it is an ancient text. You can't compare a mutually exclusive statement like that, with what amounts to empty data set. Heli doesn't mean anything to us like "born" means something to us.