Flaws in the Scriptures

There are plenty of discrepencies - a number of which have been discussed here in other threads.But the question is how to deal with everything in a single thread ?I mean I can point out that Matthew has Jesus born during the reign of Herod the Great, while Luke puts Jesus birth during a Roman census which occurred ten years later, when the Romans absorbed Judaea into Syria. I'm sure you can find plenty of apologetic sites that offer assorted excuses - often misinformation. But rather than take up a whole thread on one discrepency let settle for the facts.There is no record of the Romans taxing subject kingdoms, like Judaea. Those paid tribute and it was for the rulers of the state to gather the money however they saw fit.Quirinius oversaw the census of 6 AD. There is no record placing him in Judaea prior to that time. Nor is there any record of a tax census of Judaea prior to that time.If Judaea had - contrary to all the evidence we have - been part of the Roman tax system before 6 AD, then it would not have been necessary to hold a census as soon as Judaea was annexed.That there is a discrepency between Luke and Matthew on this point is the only reasonable conclusion.

It seems to me that the whole point of this discussion is ot see where the eivdence points.If your perspective is the one I have seen before - that the Bible is literally true no matter what, and all you have to do is come up with some excuse - no matter how implausible, no matter what violence it does to the spirit of the text to rebut any discrepency then there just is no point. Such arguments clearly beg the question posed by the initial post. So, whether your perspective is allowable depends on the extent to which it is compatible with the purpose of the thread.

You are incorrect. I did not "define" Apostolos' statement. I speculate on what it was likely to be - clearly prefacing the statement with an "if". I do not dictate other's positions to them.However since you state that scripture can be read and understood wihtout going to such lengths it seems that the discrepencies must either be reasonably explainable or are genuine.Of course I would note that your claim that Proverbs 8:4-9 is speaking of the Bible is in itself an assumption. Are you stating htat the Bible was directly produced by the personified Wisdom appearing in Proverbs 8 ? If so, the relevance to this thread is that the same discrepencies would constitute evidence against that claim - it cannot be assumed as an argument against the existence of discrepencies.

You seem to have misunderstood my point. I stated that a particular viewpoint - one that would likely be introduced with words very like yours was inappropriate to the thread. If you wish to argue from that viewpoint then you are wasting everyone's time with posts that contribute nothing to the discussion.I did not say that you did not have an equal voice in the discussion.I did not say that it was "strange and impossible" to consider the texts in context.All I said was that any argument that rested implicitly or explicilty on the assumption of inerrancy or grossly privileged the inerrantist view was inappropriate to this thread.Why is that so difficult to understand ? Is begging the question normal in the circles you "debate" in ?

To deal with the explanations you offer.Your Passover answer presumes that they celebrated the Passover on different days. This seems rather unlikely.With regard to the Flood there is certainly evidence of civilisations carrying on through the dates assigned to the flood (e.g. the Jomon Culture of Japan). Tell me where you put the Flood and we can see whether any civilisations survived thorugh it or not.On Jehoiachins age, both sources give the duration of his reign as ~3 months. It should be ten years longer in Chronicles if your explanation was correct. Your explanation is not reasonable.And neither of the posts linked as explanations of the sundial dealt with the issue at all.SO I don't see one answer I consider reaosnable in your list.

Well the only thing that surprises me is the claim that Qurinius was Governor of Syria from 12 BC to 2 BC. Anybody familiar with the actual evidence would know that this is not only wihtout foundation but contradicted by everything we know. I strongly suggest that you do some real research instead of relying on the excuses produced by inerrantists.If you have any recent evidence of the Romans taxing client kingdoms then please present it. Please bear in mind that your Christian apologetic works are not reliable and tend to misreport the facts in their favour. At present I *do* know that Josephus refers to tribute payments - but makes no reference to the Romans imposing Roman taxes on Judaea prior to 6 AD.Luke explicitly links the census to taxation, therefore there is no need to speculate on other reasons unless you wish to assume that Luke is in error on this point.A strained relationship with Herod is not itself reason to call a census. Moevover if that were the reason it is likely that Josephus would have mentioned it - he did not. Your assessment of "very likely" is wrong. It is very UNLIKELY.There was no record of a census in Judaea in 8 BC. And even if there were the 14-year arrangement is only known in Egypt. There is no standard arrangement.I don't know why you bring up a census of Gaul - and I certainly do not know why you suggest I would beleive that there was no census in Gaul at that date. Presumably this is a tactic to try to make it seem relevant. It is not.Your claim that Quirinius was governor at the "time" is unsupported by any evidence (although you do not specify the time). Indeed it is certain that Qurinius was NOT Governor from 12 BC to 2 BC. We have most (perhaps all - I haven't time to check now) of the governors for that period and Qurinius was not one. The governorship was held for only 3 years - so it is quite impossible that Quirinius would have been governor for 10-11 years as you say. Your sources are either ignorant or lying. Nor is there a Latin inscription suggesting that he was Governor twice.Likewe there are NO archaeological finds that suggest that Quirinius was in Judaea prior to 6 AD. There is NO evidence that makes your hypothesis likely - indeed it is speculation piled on speculation.The most likely hypothesis is the Luke dated Jesus' birth to the 6 AD census. This is the first recorded census of Judaea. A prior census would have been MORE important politically and therefore likely to be recorded if had occurred. Qurinius presided over the 6 AD census. There is no record placing him in Judaea prior to this. These facts remain. The conclusion is that the Gospels arre in conflict over the date of the nativity by a period of at least ten years.

Can you explain why these "Bible scholars" suggest that the Last Supper was a day early ? Is there any reason other than to deny the contradiction between the Gospels ?And why do they ignore Mark 14:12, Matthew 26:17 and Luke 22:7 which clearly state that the Last Supper was held on the day of Passover (see Exodus 12) ?Proposing that three of the Gospels are wrong hardly proves that there is no contradiction.

Can you explain what is so excellent about a collection of excuses that can easily be seen to be false ?You will not that he clearly did not even look at the relevant verses of the Bible. For instance his "explanation" of Jehoiachins age does not solve the contradiction at all - and to see that all you have to do is read a little further on and see that both books give the same duration for Jehoiachin's reign.W Fortenberry's post was careless and highly inaccurate - a very shoddy piece of work. What is "excellent" about that ?

If 2 Chronicles starts Jehoiachin's reign at 8 and he reigns 3 months and ten days before being deposed and dragged off to Babylon, how does he get to be King at 18 ? Read the relevant passages !Both say that Jehoiachin reigned for (about) three months, and that he was succeeded by Zesekaiah who reigned 11 years. You do not have room to insert another ten years into the Chronicles account. Don't you care about what the Bible actually says ?

Nonsense. 2 Chronicles puts the length of Jehoichin's reign at three months and 10 days. The ONLY thing that could qualify as a "start date" is the time he "became King" at age 8.This really explains why you were unable to find any errors in the KJV - an absolute refusal to see them !

That's "Utnapishtim". Oh well "Deucalion" isn't "Noah" either...

Well I'm still waiting for you to provide actual evidence to back up all the assertions you made in reply to mine.As it stands you have to rely on assuming unlikely events without a shred of direct evidence that any of them happened. And that means that the discrepency stands.

Message 79 on page 6http://EvC Forum: Flaws in the Scriptures -->EvC Forum: Flaws in the ScripturesWhat I would like you to do is to produce the evidence you claim exists. Because all my reaseach says otherwiseI would also like some argument to explain why it would be "likely" for Augustus to take the unprecedented step of ordering a census of Judaea simply because of his disagreements with Herod. My own assessment is that it is still very unlikely - it is certainly not an obvious response and there is no historical evidence that such a move was even considered.Finally I would point out that you clearly hadn't researched the issue properly - or you would know that it is simply not possible that Quirinius was Governor of Syria from 12 BC to 2 BC.