Here's one that jesus_freak would no doubt throw out, since it relies on a comparison to historical records other than the Bible. Never mind that these records were written much closer to the actual events than the Bible was...
There are two distinctly different Nativity stories, each taking a different approach to explaining how the Messiah could have come from Gallilee when all the prophecies said he was supposed to be born in Bethlehem. One implies that Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem all along, but King Herod ran them off, and they eventually settled in Gallilee. The other says they lived in Gallilee, and came to Bethlehem because Quirinius, the governor of Syria, told them to report there for a census (apparently, the census ordered heads of families to go to the towns where their most famous ancestor was born. Roman efficiency at its finest!).
King Herod died some time before an eclipse in 4 BC. Quirinius became governor of Syria a few years later. No way they were both in charge at the same time.
Plus, there was never any census of the "whole world", as the Bible claims. The census was limited to Syria, and was ordered by Quirinius.
But, why should we listen to Romans, who were probably the most meticulous bureaucrats in history when it came to keeping records?
Welcome to the pool!!
