Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Inerrancy of the Bible
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 3 of 301 (175463)
01-10-2005 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by 36Christians
01-10-2005 10:23 AM


Well you can start by explaining how you know that John 17:17 refers to the Bible. Especially as John 17:14 implies that it refers to Jesus' own teachings.
And might I also ask when you went looking for errors in the KJV did you use the "rule" of Biblical interpreatation that states that the correct interpretation of the Bible cannot contradict itself ? If so how could you find errors ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by 36Christians, posted 01-10-2005 10:23 AM 36Christians has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by 36Christians, posted 01-12-2005 4:18 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 44 of 301 (176315)
01-12-2005 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by 36Christians
01-12-2005 4:18 PM


No, the Bible does NOT claim to be the Word of God in 2 Timothy.
I know the verse you refer to and it refers only to "scripture" being "God-breathed". It is neither clear about which documents it is intended to refer to nor exactly what "God-breathed" means - it certainly falls short of an explicit claim that the Bible IS the Word of God. Especially as it is not difficult to find parts of the Bible which are certainly not written as if God were the author.
It may be widely-believed that the Bible claims to be the Word of God but it needs to be stated that this is merely a questionable translation of a vague text.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by 36Christians, posted 01-12-2005 4:18 PM 36Christians has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 58 of 301 (176651)
01-13-2005 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by NosyNed
01-13-2005 5:04 PM


Re: Drive by is 36??
I think that's a bit premature. 36 was late answering the first responses but made 4 posts yesterday. Give it a few more days.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by NosyNed, posted 01-13-2005 5:04 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by NosyNed, posted 01-13-2005 5:37 PM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 70 of 301 (176874)
01-14-2005 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by johnfolton
01-14-2005 1:08 AM


No, it's not a an error in the calendar.
The census of Qurinius was taken when the Romans deposed Herod's successor Archelaus - indeed the census was taken BECAUSE Judaea's status changed from that of a client state to part of the Empire itself.
Matthew 2:22 agrees that Archelaus succeeded Herod the Great in Judaea. Josephus tells us that Archelaus was deposed in the tenth year of his reign and that it was then that Quirinius was sent to hold a census in Judaea (Antiquities 17 chapter 13, and 18 Chapter 1)
There is no way that this problem can be attributed to a mere error in the calendar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by johnfolton, posted 01-14-2005 1:08 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by johnfolton, posted 01-14-2005 10:59 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 75 of 301 (176973)
01-14-2005 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by johnfolton
01-14-2005 10:59 AM


Can you actually read ? Because you managed to completely miss the point I raised.
Herod the Great died and his son Archelaus became ruler of Judaea.
In the 10th year of Achelaus' reign he was deposed by the Romans who annexed Judaea.
As part of that Quirinius was sent to Judaea to hold a census for tax purposes.
The error in the calendar is not relevant to the fact that Herod died before Archelaus became ruler or the fact that the census came after Archelaus was deposed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by johnfolton, posted 01-14-2005 10:59 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by johnfolton, posted 01-14-2005 11:51 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 79 of 301 (176987)
01-14-2005 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by johnfolton
01-14-2005 11:51 AM


No, there is no evidence of any Roman tax event in the reign of Herod the Great. Judaea wasn't even in the Roman tax system - as a client state it paid tribute (i.e. Herod paid an agreed sum to Rome and it was up to him how that money was raised). And despite your claim to the contrary Quirinius is explicitly mentioned in Luke 2:2 (some translations use the Greek form "Cyrenius" - but it is the same person).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by johnfolton, posted 01-14-2005 11:51 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by johnfolton, posted 01-14-2005 12:35 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 83 of 301 (177010)
01-14-2005 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by johnfolton
01-14-2005 12:35 PM


You actually think that Matthew was an eye-witness to the time of Jesus BIRTH !!!??? Where in the Bible is there the slightest suggestion that that is true ? In fact we don't even know if the anonymous author of "Matthew" was alive when Jesus died.
And I've already pointed out that there is no way that the problem can be due to a calendar error. Archelaus came after Herod the Great and the census came after Archelaus. Your calendar error doesn't affect the sequence of events or the relative dates at all.
I've looked into this and there is nothing placing Quirinius in or around Judaea prior to 6AD. He is certainly not Governor of Syria at the time of Herod's death and it is not possible that he was Governor for 10 years. Nor is there any record of any census during the reign of Herod the Great.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by johnfolton, posted 01-14-2005 12:35 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by johnfolton, posted 01-14-2005 1:43 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 90 of 301 (177029)
01-14-2005 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by johnfolton
01-14-2005 1:43 PM


I've given references to Luke, Matthew and Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. You've given absolutely nothing that actually addresses the point. Indeed you have claimed that a calendar error somehow explains it more than once with no explanation of how that could possibly be the case.
Here's some more facts for you. The death of Herod occurred whne Quintilius Varus was governor of Syria (Antiquities 17 10.1) Varus predecessor was Saturninus (Antiquities 17 5.2)
17 5.2
"Now Quintilius Varus was at this time at Jerusalem, being sent to succeed Saturninus as president of Syria..."
17 10.1
"BUT before these things could be brought to a settlement, Malthace, Archelaus's mother, fell into a distemper, and died of it; and letters came from Varus, the president of Syria, which informed Caesar of the revolt of the Jews; for after Archlaus was sailed, the whole nation was in a tumult..." (This revolt was the immediate aftermath of Herod's death)
18.1.1
"NOW Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to he a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews"
Now where's your evidence ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by johnfolton, posted 01-14-2005 1:43 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by johnfolton, posted 01-14-2005 4:53 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 100 of 301 (177211)
01-15-2005 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by johnfolton
01-14-2005 4:53 PM


What answer ? I hope you understand that I quoted only a small piece of the text to illustrate my poins.
Varus was Governor when Herod died.
His predecessor was Saturninus.
Neither are the Quirinius of Lukes census.
However Quirinius WAS sent to take control of the census held when Judaea was annexed after the expulsion of Archelaus.
The census of 6 AD is the only close match to Luke - and the evidence is against even the possibility of an earlier census (which would almost certainly have been recorded if there had been one).
And your link is wrong. Quirinius was of Patrician, not equestrian class and could not have been procurator at all. Herod died before 2BC so it contradicts Matthew, putting Jesus birth in the reign of Archelaus. And the registration is not connected to tax contradicting Luke.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by johnfolton, posted 01-14-2005 4:53 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by johnfolton, posted 01-15-2005 11:30 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 114 of 301 (177534)
01-16-2005 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by johnfolton
01-15-2005 11:30 AM


By "inherently correct" you mean a "total invention lacking any supporting evidence and contrary to known fact". As a member of the Patrician class Quirinius could not be Procurator at all. And Martin has no evidence placing him in Judaea in 2BC.
And of coure the 2BC date contradicts Matthew (Herod is dead) and Luke (the oath is neither a census nor held for tax purposes).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by johnfolton, posted 01-15-2005 11:30 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by johnfolton, posted 01-16-2005 12:14 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 121 of 301 (177578)
01-16-2005 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by johnfolton
01-16-2005 12:14 PM


Since Martin assumes that Quirinius was a Procuator (which we know to be impossible) I am not about to trust his claims on other matters.
Where is this historical material which establishes that the handover from Saturninus to Varus was in 2 BC ?
And why is the 4BC eclipse the wrong one ?
This life of Varus makes no mention of his being Governor of Syria in 2BC - it puts his arrival in 7BC Error 404 - Livius
Lets have some evidence. I get tired of dealing with the inventions of apologists who will make up anything rather than accept the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by johnfolton, posted 01-16-2005 12:14 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by johnfolton, posted 01-16-2005 3:38 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 124 of 301 (177604)
01-16-2005 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by johnfolton
01-16-2005 3:38 PM


The Wikipedia article also states "...Herod's death is established to have occurred in 4 B.C..." So it contradicts itself on this point.
As to Josephus' history there are more complications to the date.
The census of Quirinius is completed in the 37th year after Actium (31 BC). Archelaus was expelled in the tenth year of his reign so we may take the completion of the census as having been ten years after Herod's death (it cannot be much less). Herod's death therefore must have been in the 27th year after Actium - 4 BC.
And let us remember that the site you were promoting as showing an inaccuracy in he calendar insisted that Jesus was born in 4 BC - have you now decided that it was wrong ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by johnfolton, posted 01-16-2005 3:38 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Abshalom, posted 01-16-2005 7:25 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 127 by johnfolton, posted 01-16-2005 7:46 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 131 of 301 (177730)
01-17-2005 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by johnfolton
01-16-2005 7:46 PM


The arguments over John the Baptist rely on assumptions that can't be corroborated. For a start his age when he started his ministry isn't really known. Why couldn't John the Baptist start preaching at the age of 32 ? And how does knowing that John the Baptist was born MORE than 6 months before Jesus provide any really useful information in pinning down when Jesus was born ? All Luke 1:35-6 tells us is that Mary was told whe would conceive when Elixabeth was already 6 months pregnant. THere's nothing more to tell us when Jesus was actually conceived.
Moreover we aren't arguing about the actual date of that - we are discussing the date of the census mentioned in Luke. At present the 6 AD date is still better - as it is a tax census held while Quirinius was governor of Syria as Luke says. Your 2 BC alternative has only circumstantial evidence that it actually ocurred, was not held for taxation purposes at all and there is no evidence placing Quirinius as holding the Governorship (indeed instead we have the claim that he was Procurator - whicb we know to be false since he was not of the equestrian order and therefore not eligible). So if your claims are right Luke is wrong about the purpose of his "census" and almost certainly wrong about the governorship.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by johnfolton, posted 01-16-2005 7:46 PM johnfolton has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 170 of 301 (178203)
01-18-2005 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by 36Christians
01-18-2005 1:00 PM


Re: Some old chestnuts
Well since you can only answer these problems by producing rather dubious excuses (the ne about Solomon's stables is a hoot !) your contention that the Bible is inerrant is not exactly well supported. In fact the evidnece is strongly against it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by 36Christians, posted 01-18-2005 1:00 PM 36Christians has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by FliesOnly, posted 01-18-2005 2:25 PM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 205 of 301 (178443)
01-19-2005 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by johnfolton
01-19-2005 1:29 AM


Re: Hovind?
quote:
Arachnophilia, How can one not respect Kent for walking the walk, not
just talking the talk. I respect his opinion not that I agree with everything he says.
You mean that he is truly dedicated to the worship of lies as seen in his dishonest attempt to evade paying the taxes due, as well as in his objections to museums putting forward accurate displays.
This message has been edited by PaulK, 01-19-2005 02:25 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2005 1:29 AM johnfolton 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