Bible contradictions?

[Undeceived]

The nativity story is only in Matthew and Luke, and I don't see how they might contradict.

you're fucking stupid.

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospels...tivity.htm

I'll go through your link point by point.
"Matthew says that news of Mary’s pregnancy was announced only to Joseph, by an angel in a dream, and only after Jesus had been conceived."
Wrong. Matthew 1:18 says: "His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit."

"The Hebrew word “almah” means “young woman of marriageable age,” not a virigin."
The two are synonymous in Hebrew language and culture. You aren't marriageable unless you're a virgin. If Mary was discovered not to be a virgin she would never have married, but she did.

"Contrary to Luke, Quirinius did not govern Syria and Judea during Herod’s rule."
Luke never says that. A closer translation of 2:2 says, "And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria." That means Cyrenuis (Quirinius) instituted it, not that he was necessarily there at the time. Also, the assumption that he wasn't there is because Roman records mention Quirinius as governor in AD 6. But that doesn't mean he wasn't governor for an earlier first term.

"Both Matthew and Luke make David one of Jesus’ ancestors, but each uses a different genealogy. Both can’t be right."
Matthew uses Joseph's genealogy. Luke uses Mary's genealogy. This makes the prophecy even more remarkable since both of Jesus' lines are through David.

"Why they needed a star to get from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, a mere 8 miles, is a mystery."
Matthew 2 says, "Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, 'Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.'" Clearly, the star alerted the Magi from the far east. They went to Jerusalem because that was where the palace was, and they assumed a king would be in a palace. If the star hovered childishly over the stable, as this article suggests, why would they stop at Jerusalem wondering where he was? More likely, they asked around and heard the news from the shepherds. Bethlehemstar.net describes a unique celestial event that Luke may have been referring to: http://www.bethlehemstar.net/dance/dance.htm

"When the shepherds visit Jesus, both Mary and Joseph are surprised at their story despite the fact that (according to Luke) Mary already knew that Jesus was special (according to Matthew, Joseph knew)."
I would be surprised if angels dropped into my backyard and started singing too! Just because Joseph and Mary each saw an angel doesn't mean they would expect a whole host to appear to random people on the night of the birth, and then a procession to walk in saying they know their baby. It would be a sign of fabrication if Luke didn't say they were surprised.

"Only Matthew describes the wise men, but he has them visit a house where Jesus is born and he doesn't mention how many — it could have been 2 or 20. Luke has the shepherds visit, but only mentions a manger — not a stable or animals."
The wise men visited weeks or months after the birth. That's why Epiphany is celebrated later than Christmas. Their number is irrelevant. Yes, no animals are mentioned. Modern nativity scene's have animals just as an exercise of the imagination. Luke thought the shepherds were important to write about. Matthew thought the Magi were more important. Put together, we get a fuller account.

"Only Matthew mentions Herod’s slaughter of the innocents — not only does it not appear in any other gospel, it doesn’t appear in any historical record at all."
Not every event needs to be mentioned to have happened! Since Herod killed thousands this was probably not so different. It's logical that Herod would kill newborns after hearing of a new king. Matthew also cites Jeremiah 31:15: "A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are no more." Bethlehem and Jerusalem are both in Ramah.

No contradictions. The author would have understood better if he had taken the time to read beneath the surface, examine the original Greek, and look into cultural terminology.