Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the sky really go dark as biblical inerrantists insist?
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 1 of 113 (339143)
08-11-2006 7:03 AM


The following is a passage from the gospel of Luke:
23:44 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.
23:45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.
If this is to be taken at face value as a real event, then why do we not see any accounts by any other civilization of this happening?
Many other cultures around the world had very advanced astronomy at the time.
The Chinese, Mayans, and Arabs, for example.
Of course the Romans, who were the occupying government in the Bible story and who kept prodigious and meticulous records of everything, have no record at all of such a remarkable and dramatic astronomical event.
If this really happened, why is there absolutely no mention of it by any other nation in the world, especially those who had skilled astronomers?
Biblical accuracy?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by sidelined, posted 08-15-2006 10:08 AM nator has not replied
 Message 4 by Brian, posted 08-15-2006 10:31 AM nator has not replied
 Message 5 by randman, posted 08-15-2006 10:48 AM nator has not replied
 Message 6 by jar, posted 08-15-2006 10:56 AM nator has not replied
 Message 11 by nwr, posted 08-15-2006 11:24 AM nator has replied
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-16-2006 6:35 PM nator has not replied
 Message 22 by anglagard, posted 08-16-2006 7:01 PM nator has not replied
 Message 65 by doctrbill, posted 02-05-2007 1:51 PM nator has not replied
 Message 69 by velcero, posted 02-12-2007 12:31 PM nator has replied
 Message 93 by Juraikken, posted 04-15-2007 9:04 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 13 of 113 (340361)
08-15-2006 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by randman
08-15-2006 11:11 AM


Re: Geesh!
quote:
There's a lot we don't know. A solar eclipse could be possible. More likely, it was a combination of both spiritual and natural forces, so that the clouds were darker than would be the case otherwise due to the sins of the entire timeline of humanity and perhaps other worlds being placed on Jesus during that time.
For the sake of argument, I am allowing that the sun, indeed, did darken over the entire earth, by whatever means you wish to claim.
If it did, though, why wasn't such an unusual, singular event recorded by any other civilization on Earth?
Also, why wasn't this astounding phenomena recorded in the other Gospels, either?
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by randman, posted 08-15-2006 11:11 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Brian, posted 08-16-2006 4:58 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 14 of 113 (340363)
08-15-2006 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by nwr
08-15-2006 11:24 AM


Re: Maybe a heavy thunderstorm
quote:
That seems like an apt description of what we often see here in the midwest. The local radio station would likely be announcing that a severe thunderstorm warning, or sometimes a tornado warning, was in effect.
Sure, "over all the earth" seems like overstatement, but that's the kind of metaphoric description that people sometimes use. Why not take "over all the earth" as meaning "as far as the eye can see."
I am happy with that interpretation, but it does add to what is stated in the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by nwr, posted 08-15-2006 11:24 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by nwr, posted 08-15-2006 7:33 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 71 of 113 (384660)
02-12-2007 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by velcero
02-12-2007 12:31 PM


Re: Response to Nator
quote:
Furthermore, when historians attempt to judge the accuracy of some report in the past, they pretty much dismiss it if only one account reports the event. If two different reports exist, historians consider the event possible. If there are three or more reports that corroborate the event, it is considered to be historically accurate. The same description quoted above occurs in Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Er, you do know that whomever wrote "Matthew, Mark, and Luke" di so at various times many decades after the event in question, and none of them were likely to have been eye-witnesses.
In addition, all had a vested interest in telling the same sory, being proponents of the same sect and all.
What histoians look for is multiple independent sources to help establish the liklihood of an event.
And if it was such an important "sign" that the first three gospels mention it, why is it absent from John? Clearly, the other three gospels mention it as though it was a meaningful, unusual, supernatural event that was caused by the death of Jesus, not some clouds or smoke that just happened to be concurrent with his death.
And doesn't it seem strange to you, that the occupying Romans, with all of their meticulous record keeping, would utterly fail to notice such an unusual event?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by velcero, posted 02-12-2007 12:31 PM velcero has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by truthlover, posted 02-14-2007 2:01 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 94 of 113 (395290)
04-15-2007 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Juraikken
04-15-2007 9:04 PM


Re: isolated event
quote:
when they also say that an earthquake happened does that mean the entire earth shook? no, just that place.
The thing is, earthquakes are quite isolated events, but the darkening of the sun would be noticeable by entire continents. And this particular one happened in the populated middle of the Roman Empire. There's no record of that eathquake, even though the Romans were meticulous record-keepers.
quote:
the sun was darkened yeah, when clouds come over the sun it gets dark then too.
It doesn't get dark when clouds come over the sun.
It gets overcast.
I mean, Christ had just died. There were earthquakes! The temple curtain ripped! And then...it became cloudy...
Just doesn't sound like it fits, does it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Juraikken, posted 04-15-2007 9:04 PM Juraikken has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Juraikken, posted 04-15-2007 10:42 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 96 of 113 (395380)
04-16-2007 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Juraikken
04-15-2007 10:42 PM


Re: isolated event
quote:
i know that the romans were good record-keepers, but think about it, why was evidence for Jesus so scarce? do you think they were ashamed of the whole act that they limited the information?
No, not at all. They crucified people every day.
quote:
getting DARK and an OVERCAST could mean the same thing,
Yes, they could. But again, does "getting overcast" fit in with the other events of an earthquake and the temple curtain getting torn? Are they of the same scale and magnitude?
Remember, there there were also supposed to be a bunch of people rising from the dead and walking around and talking to people.
I think, when one looks at the other fantastic events that were supposed to have happened, the writers meant something more remarkable that "it became overcast".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Juraikken, posted 04-15-2007 10:42 PM Juraikken has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Juraikken, posted 04-16-2007 12:58 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 98 of 113 (395479)
04-16-2007 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Juraikken
04-16-2007 12:58 PM


Re: isolated event
Look, you can massage your interpretation all you want.
If you want to interpret "darkness over all the land" as "a low pressure front moved in", be my guest. If you want to imagine that the Romans felt shame for crucifying Jesus, even though there's no indication in the bible that they did (or independent sources that Jesus even existed) then go for it.
But then you have no basis for saying the Bible is an accurate account of anything that happened. We can add imagined motives or discount certain events all we want throughout the entire text; if we can do that here, why not everywhere else?
I'd love to hear your explanation of why all the resurrected dead people roaming the streets were not remarked upon by the Romans, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Juraikken, posted 04-16-2007 12:58 PM Juraikken has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Juraikken, posted 04-16-2007 7:00 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 100 of 113 (395488)
04-16-2007 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Juraikken
04-16-2007 7:00 PM


Re: isolated event
Look, you can massage your interpretation all you want.
quote:
thats an overstatement
No, it really isn't. All you've provided is apologetics.
We can add imagined motives or discount certain events all we want throughout the entire text of the Bible; if we can do that here, why not everywhere else?
quote:
but then again a lot of the miracles Jesus did wasnt in Rome, it was out of Rome, so what are the romans to document?
Um, Israel was part of the Roman Empire at the time. That's why the Romans were there.
All of Jesus' miracles, if he did them, happened in the Roman Empire, and Romans were in charge of the government.
Pontious Pilate isn't a very Hebrew-sounding name, is it?
quote:
may you please be kind to point out the verse where it says such things?
Matthew 27:52-53
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Juraikken, posted 04-16-2007 7:00 PM Juraikken has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Juraikken, posted 04-16-2007 8:05 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 102 of 113 (395638)
04-17-2007 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Juraikken
04-16-2007 8:05 PM


Re: I see....
quote:
appeared unto MANY, meaning not everyone saw them...so tell me, if you see a ghost today or a dead person walking, and you went up to the police to say "i saw my grandpa get out of his grave and walk to me!" you think they are going to believe you?
the romans could have marked this as hysteria people were acting out insanities, and/or were grieving over Jesus' death and saw things due to their depression.....they could say THAT and never even record it, cuz i mean its like recording a bee pollinating a flower LOL its rediculous to record
See, this stuff that you wrote above is you massaging the text to mean whatever you need it to mean to counter any argument.
Coulda, mighta...you are rendering the plain text of the Bible as more and more meaningless with your heavy interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Juraikken, posted 04-16-2007 8:05 PM Juraikken has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by anastasia, posted 04-17-2007 10:08 AM nator has not replied
 Message 104 by purpledawn, posted 04-17-2007 12:50 PM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024