If some parts of the Bible can't be trusted how can any of it?

It's simple.He had to fudge the calculation to try to make the years fit the prediction.Of course, when it comes to the date of 1 A.D. for Jesus.. the problem with that is that according to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the King, who died in 4 B.C.. so that screws the calcuation up there.ANd, of course, Luke has Jesus being born during the census that Rome took when Judah first became a providence of Syria, which was 6 C.E., so that is screwed up according to Luke.

>I've tried to avoid simply "ganging up" on you here, but the point
>others have been making is important. That is, "after the fact"
>prophecy identification simply allows too much leeway for
>manipulation of the data.Thank you, I appreciate your concern, but getting picked on comes with the territory. Jesus said so, and I do better when I remember this.And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land [that is] not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years
Genesis 15:13Not that this has direct bearing on your main point, but how did he get 430 years and not 400?It is late. I will continue researching this question tommorrow after work.ROTB

>>Please demonstrate what you are speaking of. Using the verses used
>>by the author of the preceding link, make them point persuasively to
>>another verifiable historical event, or make them plausibly point to
>>the same historical event in a different way.>Sorry, but I have already shown that the examples given in your links
>are not prophecy.
>First, they were only understood after the fact.The dictionary definition of prophecy says nothing about when a prophecy is understood. Prophecy Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com(For those of you just joining us, the discussion of prophecy started with the prophecies at Page not found though it drifted to Jesus' prophecy of the 2nd Temple being destroyed in the sight of the generation he stood eye-to-eye with in Matthew 23 and 24).>Second, many were not even written until after the fact, as in the
>case of Matthew.Highlighting this heavenly corroboration of the New Covenant in the New Testament for convincing Jewish skeptics, would be priority one if the prophecy was made up after 70 AD, and then written down.If Jesus predicting the destruction of the 2nd Temple in Matthews 23 and 24 was written after it happened in 70 AD, why is this ...1) outstanding validation of the New Covenant
2) conclusive ending of the Old Covenant... not mentioned even one time in the New Testament?How do you explain Christianity's spread from Jerusalem to Rome by 64 AD without a single written document until after 70 AD, or are you only claiming that the Gospels were written after 70 AD, or are you only claiming Matthew was written after 70 AD?ROTB

>You know.. I would like to see where you get your supposed numbers.>Did you know that when people quote statistics, they are made up on
>the spot 90% of the time??Good joke. You made me laugh.Just in case you really want to know, I got the figures from this free PDF book written by a Rabbi:http://www.yourarmstoisrael.org/...rst_Response_Handbook.pdfROTBThis message has been edited by ROTB, 08-25-2004 10:56 AM

>>2590 biblical years x (360 days per biblical year/365.2422199074 days
>>per calendar year) = 2552.82645099 calendar years>Your formula is not taking into account the biblical leap years.There are 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 47.8 seconds in a solar year.I did all the math, and I got 365.2422199074 days per year using the aforementioned information. The math on the top line from my previous post therefore automatically adjusts for leap years.http://visualbasic.about.com/library/bldykleapyra.htmROTB

>>I suspect you misunderstood.>No, you misunderstood my objection.>All your dates are based on the Gregorian calendar, which erroneously
>dates Jesus's birth at 1 AD. How can we be expected to believe that
>God's prophecy would be based on a calendar rooted in falsehood?>You're getting a date of 1948, but nobody who didn't know Israel was
>founded in 1948 would have gotten this date.I apologize. Thank you for your patience so far with my misunderstanding.The reason the researchers at yfiles claim with certainty that Israel was conquered in 606 BC, are because:1) The Babylonians kept records of lunar and solar eclipses
2) The Old Testament kept records of when kings rose to power
3) The Babylonians, if I am not mistaken, and memory serves, also kept records of when kings rose to power.So, given we know the present speed and position of the moon, using the dates of the eclipses, and using them to calibrate against known Jewish and Babylonian recorded history, we can have much certainty that the date we call with our modern calendars July 17, 606 BC, is when Israel was conquered.Then we add the 932,400 days we get from Jeremiah, Leviticus, and Ezekiel to our 606 BC to get 1948 AD.>>According to the Bible, years are 360 days>Maybe, but that's not how long a year is. A Year is 365.24 days. Why
>would God base his prophecy on an erroneous year length?Quoting Isaac Newton:
All nations, before the just length of the solar year was known, reckoned months by the course of the moon, and years by the return of winter and summer, spring and autumn; and in making calendars for their festivals, they reckoned thirty days to a lunar month, and twelve lunar months to a years, taking the nearest round numbers, whence came the division of the ecliptic into 360 degrees.
Page not foundThe question before us is, since "all nations" according to Newton, used 360 days as an estimate for a year, what really happened back then? I'll run through as many possibilities as I can think of:1) The years were 365.24 days long, but all nations agreed to guess it was 360.
2) The years were 365.24 days long, but all nations agreed to guess it was 360 with adjustments they did not record.
3) The years were 365.24 days long, and each nation attempted to calculate it, and all made the error of calculating it at 360 days.
4) The years were 360 days long until Isaiah's sundial incident discussed in Page not found and Page not found changed the length of a year to 365.24 days per year.I think #4 is the most likely possibility. Since Page not found claims that everyone's 360 day calendar worked well until the 8th century BC, then they had to start adjusting them.Is it reasonable that all nations not know how to watch stars, and count the days in a year? Would the nations meet to decide something like this, and there be no history or legend of it? They were smarter than we usually give them credit for, so each of them correctly calculating 360 before the 8th century BC is not outside the realm of possibility.>That works out better, but why did you post an erroneous equation in
>the first place?I traced back to that post, and I wrote in that post that I would summarize the yfiles article. I did not deliberately set out to mislead. Writing what I thought was a brief reminder for those who had just finished reading the link, and saying so before I did, turned into a misunderstanding between us.In retrospect, leaving out the conversion to 360 day years was a mistake on my part.Thank you again for your time, and patience.ROTB

YOu forget another possibility.That ancient civilisations used adjustments which they DID record/ragz-international.com - ragz international Resources and Information.

quote:

---

It was necessary for the lunar year of about 354 days to be brought into line with the solar (agricultural) year of approximately 365 days. This was accomplished by the use of an intercalated month. Thus, in the 21st century BC, a special name for the intercalated month iti dirig appears in the sources.

---

Or even that some used a 365 day calendar16 Black Americans in Astronomy and Space

quote:

---

The earliest Egyptian calendar was based on the moon's cycles, but later the Egyptians realized that the "Dog Star" in Canis Major, which is now called Sirius, rose next to the sun every 365 days, about when the annual inundation of the Nile began. Based on this knowledge, they devised a 365-day calendar that seems to have begun in 4236 B.C., the earliest recorded year in history.

---

This site also indicates that the ancient Egyptians used a 365 day calendar. Calendar

Quoting Isaac Newton again:
All nations, before the just length of the solar year was known, reckoned months by the course of the moon, and years by the return of winter and summer, spring and autumn; and in making calendars for their festivals, they reckoned thirty days to a lunar month, and twelve lunar months to a years, taking the nearest round numbers, whence came the division of the ecliptic into 360 degrees.How can you be certain that the cultures cited in those links used 365 day years before the 8th century BC? I have no qualms with the notion that 365.24 day years were needed after the 8th century BC as theorized by Page not found and Page not found.The link to 16 Black Americans in Astronomy and Space says ...
Five thousand years ago, Sumerians in the Tigris-Euphrates valley in today's Iraq had a calendar that divided the year into 30-day monthsLet's recap:1) The Bible uses 360 day years
2) Isaac Newton who read the histories of nations for decades, said all of them used 360 day calendars.
3) Page not found confirms usage of 360 day calendars until the 8th century BC.
4) The Sumerians used 360 day years, as in the example aboveThe claim in the earlier post contradicts Newton's observation of the calendars of ancient peoples completely. Surely effort must be made to reconcile this claim with his, and the above link, unless one can offer evidence that one cannot rely at all on Newton's claims regarding the calendars employed by ancient nations, or one can discredit the above link.In tracing the symbolic unfolding of history, Newton devoted several decades to the reading of ancient history
http://www.historicist.com/Newton/title.htmGranted, the historian writing at http://www.historicist.com/Newton/title.htm claims there were errors in Newton's thinking regarding when things happened in history ...It wasn’t of course, especially his chronology which missed the mark widely in certain instances, but his method was sound and he blazed a trail others would follow.... but errors in Newton's chronology (when nations existed, and what they did and when) are errors in a discipline whose complexity and margin for error were above and beyond the difficulty of determining what nations used what kinds of calendars as Newton did amidst decades of study.The Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and you can trust with your eternal destiny the God whose Spirit was sent to live inside the men who were used to write it, and that to the best of my knowledge I have been able to reconcile what the Bible says with...1) itself
2) recorded history
3) natureAt http://shop2.gospelcom.net/...storefront/en/product/10-2-086 you can buy a $22 book that has thousands of quotes by atheists on how utterly lame and intellectually indefensible evolution, and big bang cosmology, and humanistic thinking are.If you only have $3.50 there is a short book available at http://shop2.gospelcom.net/...storefront/en/product/10-2-035
which concentrates on quotes by atheistic evolutionists on the subject of how bad the evidence is for evolution.So Newton's observation that "all nations" used a 360 day calendar at some time in their pasts, lends the Bible credibility in its claim of a 360 day year. The Bible even allows a plausible explanation Page not found of what happened in the 8th century BC that caused all calendars to be thrown from 360 to 365.24 day years.Meanwhile, atheists privately don't have any idea how evolution is supposed to be internally consistent or defensible. When you read these two books ...http://shop2.gospelcom.net/...storefront/en/product/10-2-035
http://shop2.gospelcom.net/...storefront/en/product/10-2-086... for yourself, you don't have to read more than a few pages to see how hyper devastating they are to evolution's remaining credibility against the Bible.ROTB

I think an answer can be provided. It will take at least a week, and I will probably want to run it by at least one other person.If it seems like it will take more than another week, I'll post again giving you updates.I thank you for your patience.ROTB

If the choice is between modern historians and Newton then the modern historians are the better source. Newton, for all his genious, simply did not have the same amount of information that we do today. For instance it's well known that Egyptian hieroglyphics could not be deciphered in Newton's day.And I'll certainly take academic sits over unsupported claims on your "yfiles" site.Even the inventors.com site you quote says that the 354 day year was used befor 2000 BC,So to go over your recap:
1) There is no evidence that the Bible understands a year to mena a fixed period of 360 days.
2) Newton's statement is contradicted by better-informed modern sources
3) The "yfiles" claim is unsupported form a site we already know to be unreliable.
4) The Sumerians used intercalation to correct for the problem that the lunar year did not match the solar year.And if you really want to advertise the dishonesty of your sources by saying that they make money from misrepresenting the words of people who disagree with them then go ahead. But it's your side's credibility that is destroyed by that fact.

Well, Matthew , Luke and John are all dated later than 80. Mark is dated between 65 and 80.Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

Excuse me, but 'messanic rabbi's" are not rabbi's per say. They are not Jewish. They might play at being Jewish all they want, but they have volentarily abandoned their faith.

The bible is dynamic. It will always be up-to-date.

Thanks for finally explaining that! Now I know how it was possible for the Bible to support an immovable Earth, burning women as witches, and ownership of slaves - it was just waiting on updates!

All Bibles should come in three-ring binder format? To make updates easier?