Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2019 6:02 PM
22 online now:
AZPaul3, FLRW, JonF, Theodoric (4 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,999 Year: 5,036/19,786 Month: 1,158/873 Week: 54/460 Day: 54/91 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Author Topic:   Did the sky really go dark as biblical inerrantists insist?
jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 61 of 113 (343112)
08-24-2006 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Kapyong
08-24-2006 7:20 PM


Remember we really don't know when the crucifixion took place.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Kapyong, posted 08-24-2006 7:20 PM Kapyong has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Kapyong, posted 08-24-2006 9:02 PM jar has responded

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 1549 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 62 of 113 (343142)
08-24-2006 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by jar
08-24-2006 7:25 PM


Remember we don't really know IF the crucifixion took place.

Iasion

Edited by Iasion, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 08-24-2006 7:25 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ramoss, posted 08-24-2006 9:06 PM Kapyong has not yet responded
 Message 64 by jar, posted 08-24-2006 9:10 PM Kapyong has not yet responded

    
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3100
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 63 of 113 (343145)
08-24-2006 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Kapyong
08-24-2006 9:02 PM


For that matter, we don't know if the cruxifiction took place, except as a generic event that many jews suffered.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Kapyong, posted 08-24-2006 9:02 PM Kapyong has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 64 of 113 (343146)
08-24-2006 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Kapyong
08-24-2006 9:02 PM


Different story. This is just on the issue of crucifixion and it is not at all unlikely that happened. Unfortunately though we really don't know when it really was, just as we don't really know when Jesus was born.

It is entirely possible that the crucifixion really was in what we today would assign to 29AD. That still leaves the issue of Passover, but it is certainly within the realm of possibility that since the stories we are going from were written down many, many years later and from recollection, that the real eclipse, some real eathquake and the memory of the crucifixion might all get lumped together.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Kapyong, posted 08-24-2006 9:02 PM Kapyong has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 871 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 65 of 113 (382615)
02-05-2007 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
08-11-2006 7:03 AM


Faulty Premise
Hello nator,

I hope you are not tired of this discussion. I just ran across it and after reading it through I felt it could benefit from another point of view.

nator writes:

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?

We don't see accounts by any other civilizations because no other civilization observed it happening.

In fact it could have been extremely localized. Maybe even limited to the crucifixion ground. Maybe it was caused by thick black smoke rising from the dead bodies of crucifixion victims who were being disposed in the usual manner: thrown into the city dump {Gehenna} and set on fire. This could blot out the sun and darken the sky for hours.

It is not difficult to demonstrate that “all the earth” is an expression which refers NOT to our planet but rather to a more limited area of dry land. There is no compelling reason to assume that this darkness was noticeable outside Jerusalem County:laugh:; and there is plentiful scriptural evidence to cast doubt on the notion that it was a global phenomenon.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 08-11-2006 7:03 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Mespo, posted 02-07-2007 4:05 PM doctrbill has responded

  
I AM
Junior Member (Idle past 4367 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 02-05-2007


Message 66 of 113 (382687)
02-05-2007 7:31 PM


Heres the truth no other civilization recorded it because (drum roll please)............................. It never happened.
    
Mespo
Member (Idle past 992 days)
Posts: 158
From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA
Joined: 09-19-2002


Message 67 of 113 (383268)
02-07-2007 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by doctrbill
02-05-2007 1:51 PM


Please Enlighten Me
In all the discussions bantered about concerning the reality of the darkness over all the earth...

...would someone please tell me how it was determined that the darkness lasted from the 6th hour to the 9th hour, if the PRIMARY mode of telling time in that era was the sundial?

"What time is it on the sundial?"
"Don't know. it's dark!"
"Well, then, look at your Rolexum on your wristum."

(:raig


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by doctrbill, posted 02-05-2007 1:51 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by doctrbill, posted 02-07-2007 5:11 PM Mespo has not yet responded

    
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 871 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 68 of 113 (383298)
02-07-2007 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Mespo
02-07-2007 4:05 PM


Re: Please Enlighten Me
Mespo writes:

In all the discussions bantered about concerning the reality of the darkness over all the earth...
...would someone please tell me how it was determined that the darkness lasted from the 6th hour to the 9th hour, if the PRIMARY mode of telling time in that era was the sundial?

There were alternative methods of telling time. The Greeks had invented a water-clock long before this.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Mespo, posted 02-07-2007 4:05 PM Mespo has not yet responded

  
velcero
Inactive Junior Member


Message 69 of 113 (384607)
02-12-2007 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
08-11-2006 7:03 AM


Response to Nator
First of all, the statement in the Bible is that "darkness came over the whole land", not "the whole world." If you are going to criticize, get your facts correct.

Did it ever occur to you that the darkness was caused by thick, dense clouds? Anyone older than 10 years old has experienced dark cloud cover as part of approaching heavy rains, which can also be described as eclipsing the sun. (The word eclipse simply means to hide, conceal or obscure. It DOES NOT refer exclusively to one planetary body moving in front of another.)

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. And they all say "land" not "world".

Another point about historical accuracy. The Bible is the single most criticized book in the world. Tests that would confirm authenticity to historians for other writings usually do not confirm the same authenticity for the Bible. That's because people like Nator and Brian have their eyes closed to anything the Bible has to say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 08-11-2006 7:03 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by LinearAq, posted 02-12-2007 2:09 PM velcero has responded
 Message 71 by nator, posted 02-12-2007 4:14 PM velcero has not yet responded
 Message 89 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2007 8:17 PM velcero has not yet responded

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 2783 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 70 of 113 (384634)
02-12-2007 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by velcero
02-12-2007 12:31 PM


Land or World?
velcero writes:

First of all, the statement in the Bible is that "darkness came over the whole land", not "the whole world." If you are going to criticize, get your facts correct.

quote:
Luke 23:44 (Amplified Bible)
It was now about the sixth hour (midday), and darkness enveloped the whole land and earth until the ninth hour (about three o'clock in the afternoon),

It appears that the critic is, in fact, correct.

First, the "whole land", if taken literally would mean all the land...Asia, Africa, Americas, Antarctica...etc. Sounds like this would cover almost all Longitudes.

Second, if "Luke" was just being poetic in his description of a local event, what part of the text tells us this? Wouldn't the inspiration by God prevent the indication that the whole world suffered this darkness?

velcero writes:

Did it ever occur to you that the darkness was caused by thick, dense clouds? Anyone older than 10 years old has experienced dark cloud cover as part of approaching heavy rains


Of course, Luke, being an uneducated dolt with no experience in the outdoors, couldn't tell the difference between cloud cover and a "darkness".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by velcero, posted 02-12-2007 12:31 PM velcero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by velcero, posted 02-15-2007 11:29 AM LinearAq has not yet responded
 Message 77 by velcero, posted 02-15-2007 11:51 AM LinearAq has responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 277 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 yet responded

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

    
truthlover
Member (Idle past 2166 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 72 of 113 (384669)
02-12-2007 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by LinearAq
08-15-2006 1:42 PM


Re: Geesh!
randman writes:

Has it ever occurred to any of you that "over the whole earth" there refers to an eyewitness that saw darkness over all the earth visible to them?

LinearAq writes:

Does this same logic apply to the "whole earth" being flooded and Noah being saved?
Does this same logic apply to "two of every animal" being put on the ark?
How about Christ dying on the cross to save "the whole earth"?


This may have been discussed, but I saw no reply to this.

I'm assuming that by saying this, you think that most, or at least many, Bible believers would answer that the same logic doesn't apply, but applying that logic to the flood is probably more common than not, even among Bible believers, though not among fundies.

There's even a whole segment of Christianity (Calvinists) that apply it to Christ dying on the cross.

You can't apply the idea of "every doesn't mean every" or "the whole world doesn't really mean the whole world" to every instance, but there's many places in the Bible and in everyone's communication where you do apply it. We all make that choice here and there, but not everywhere.

Personally, I think it would be silly to apply the Gospel's "darkness over all the earth" to places like Germany. How would the Gospel writer know that? It seems obvious he meant "as far as the eye can see," or at least that he probably meant that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by LinearAq, posted 08-15-2006 1:42 PM LinearAq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by LinearAq, posted 02-13-2007 11:26 AM truthlover has responded

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 2783 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 73 of 113 (384870)
02-13-2007 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by truthlover
02-12-2007 4:36 PM


Re: Geesh!
truthlover writes:

You can't apply the idea of "every doesn't mean every" or "the whole world doesn't really mean the whole world" to every instance, but there's many places in the Bible and in everyone's communication where you do apply it. We all make that choice here and there, but not everywhere.


I guess the implied question is: By what criteria does one determine that "whole earth" doesn't mean this entire globe that we live upon?
Where is the support in the text that differentiates this from other instances of "whole earth" within the Bible?

Personally, I think it would be silly to apply the Gospel's "darkness over all the earth" to places like Germany. How would the Gospel writer know that? It seems obvious he meant "as far as the eye can see," or at least that he probably meant that.

The Gospel writer would know it the same way that Moses knew that homosexuality and eating shellfish were "abominations". He knew it the same way that Paul knew that homosexuals would not see the kingdom of heaven but crab lovers would. Inspiration by the Holy Spirit of course. Assuming the Gospel writer was so inspired, who are we to hang the description of "silly" to the idea that he was right to say that the darkness enveloped the entire planet.

BTW, good looking kids in your avatar...yours?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by truthlover, posted 02-12-2007 4:36 PM truthlover has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by truthlover, posted 02-14-2007 1:52 PM LinearAq has not yet responded

    
truthlover
Member (Idle past 2166 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 74 of 113 (385180)
02-14-2007 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by LinearAq
02-13-2007 11:26 AM


Re: Geesh!
BTW, good looking kids in your avatar...yours?

Thank you, yes, though the pictures are from about 3 years ago.

By what criteria does one determine that "whole earth" doesn't mean this entire globe that we live upon?
Where is the support in the text that differentiates this from other instances of "whole earth" within the Bible?

You don't have to differentiate it. Jer 15:10 has a man saying he is "a man of contention to the whole earth." Clearly he did not mean China, or even Ethiopia. Later, in Jer 50:23, Babylon is described as a hammer of the whole earth, yet we can be assured that most Celts had never heard of them. In Ez 32:4, God says he'll fill the beasts of the whole earth with the fallen of Egypt. Again, it's doubtful that he meant to include the tigers of India or the tasmanian wolf in that.

A great example of this sort of speech is in Psalm 14, where there is none that does good "no, not one," but it goes on to say that God is with the generation of the righteous.

There is much all inclusive speech, even Biblically, that is not all inclusive.

He knew it the same way that Paul knew that homosexuals would not see the kingdom of heaven but crab lovers would. Inspiration by the Holy Spirit of course.

There are those that take inspiration to extremes and thus deny some pretty obvious science. There are others who believe the morals of Scripture are really from God. Just because one believes that the moral teachings of Scripture are inspired by God does not in any way suggest that they're obligated to believe that "the whole earth" always means the entire globe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by LinearAq, posted 02-13-2007 11:26 AM LinearAq has not yet responded

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 2166 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 75 of 113 (385182)
02-14-2007 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by nator
02-12-2007 4:14 PM


Re: Response to Nator
the occupying Romans, with all of their meticulous record keeping

I have no vested interest in this argument. Whether there was a supernatural solar eclipse, a bad thunderstorm rolling in, or nothing at all makes no difference to me whatsoever.

However, are you sure this is true? Would there really be something available documenting a severe afternoon darkness in Judah? Do we really have some sort of daily or thorough historical record of Pontius Pilate's governorship?

I'm not so sure that the Romans had the kind of thorough record keeping that you suggest, or it seems like we wouldn't rely on folks like Tacitus and Josephus so much.

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.

I would think that you'd had enough discussions with me to know that folks like us are perfectly happy ascribing supernatural sources to some seemingly mundane events. I have always read that passage as unusually heavy cloud cover, since the first time I read it in 1982. I've surely read it 40 or 50 times since, and I don't think I've ever considered anything else, though I admit it's never been at the forefront of my thought.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by nator, posted 02-12-2007 4:14 PM nator has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019