Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2019 4:14 PM
29 online now:
AZPaul3, Faith, JonF, Larni, PaulK, Stile, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (8 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,027 Year: 15,063/19,786 Month: 1,786/3,058 Week: 160/404 Day: 47/113 Hour: 1/4

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   The Bible has no contradictions
Posts: 15318
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6

Message 34 of 221 (34019)
03-10-2003 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Brian
03-09-2003 5:14 PM

Re: 2 or 1?

My fav could be this one:

'Enough archaeological confirmation has been found so that many historians now consider the Old Testament, at least that part after about the eleventh chapter of Genesis, to be historically correct. It seems strange that seminary professors often still teach the old “doubtful criticism” theories, even though the basis on which they were started has now been thoroughly discredited.'

The author doesn't name any archaeological evidence, he mentions the finds at Mari, Ebla and Nuzi but deosn't go into any detail at all, what is the evidence and what does it CONFIRM, he says himself that the names in the Mari texts 'cannot be linked directly with Biblical characters.' He also doesn't mention who these 'many historians' are that accept Genesis 11 as historically correct.

It is also either untrue or very badly out of date. Archaeologists have pretty much rejected all of the books from Exodus to Joshua as being in any way reliable, Judges is regarded as largely legend although possibly containing some useful information and there are now serious doubts over whether Saul, David or Solomon ruled over anything more than Judah.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Brian, posted 03-09-2003 5:14 PM Brian has not yet responded

Posts: 15318
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6

Message 49 of 221 (34142)
03-11-2003 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Satcomm
03-11-2003 2:18 PM

Only point 2 even attempts to address the question - and it is of rather questionable accuracy (to say the least) .

Isn't the whole Flood story a rather obvious myth ? What about Babel ? What about the lifespan attributed to Adam, Eve and their descendants ? The claim that it is eye-witness history simply does not stand up to scrutiny at all.

So no, it is not a good answer at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Satcomm, posted 03-11-2003 2:18 PM Satcomm has not yet responded

Posts: 15318
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6

Message 62 of 221 (34233)
03-12-2003 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Percy
03-12-2003 6:18 PM

Well if we're going to ask for *evidence*.

Matthew puts Jesus' birth during the reign of Herod the Great.

Luke puts Jesus' birth during a Roman census held while Quirinius was Governor of Syria for the purpose of taxation, this happened after the Romans deposed Herod's son Herod Archelaus, in the tenth year of his reign (starting with the death of Herod the Great).

(See Josephus, _Antiquities of the Jews_ XVII.13 for the deposition of Archelaus and XVIII.1 for the census)

There is no evidence placing Qurinius as Governor of Syria prior to this (indeed we know that Quintilius Varus was Governor when Herod died and Saturninus before him), nor is there any evidence that a Roman census of Judaea for tax purposes was held prior to that - nor even a good reason to suppose that the Romans would hold such a census (Judaea under Herod paid tribute to Rome, a sum agreed between the Roman government and Herod so the Roman tax system did not apply).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 03-12-2003 6:18 PM Percy has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019