Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the Bible Totally reliable ? The Nativity
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 46 of 94 (218127)
06-19-2005 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
06-19-2005 10:55 AM


Re: Rather sleazy methodology methinks
It's a huge waste of time and just another excuse to bully Christians.
Bully Christians? What? We are after your lunch money? Someone disagreeing with you is bullying you? You can't support your argument and can't refute the oppostion so you start making random accusations.
You have a real problem. You want to believe something that is not factually or scientifically supported as if it was. I didn't put you in that position. Ignoring the arguments is one way to avoid changing your beliefs or recognizing you delima. I suppose accussing debaters here of bullying you allows you to feel like you are participating in stories of martydom from the first centuries.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 06-19-2005 10:55 AM Faith has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 47 of 94 (218171)
06-20-2005 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by randman
06-19-2005 2:03 AM


If that is the strongest evidence, there was only one cencus. The one is 6 C.E... which is recorded by secular sources also, and therefore confirmed.
ALl else is smoke, mirrors, and invalid assumptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by randman, posted 06-19-2005 2:03 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 06-20-2005 11:10 AM ramoss has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 48 of 94 (218195)
06-20-2005 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by ramoss
06-20-2005 7:58 AM


You fail to realize the nature of historical evidence. Basically, you are discounting Luke's record by claiming it is incorrect on the basis Josephus did not mention a 2nd census.
Sorry, but we've been down this path before, over and over again, where skeptics discounted Luke, and were proven wrong.
An argument from silence is no real argument.
If Luke says it, then we have no reason to doubt the writer.
What would his motive to lie be here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by ramoss, posted 06-20-2005 7:58 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by PaulK, posted 06-20-2005 11:12 AM randman has replied
 Message 50 by lfen, posted 06-20-2005 2:11 PM randman has not replied
 Message 51 by ramoss, posted 06-20-2005 3:00 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 49 of 94 (218196)
06-20-2005 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by randman
06-20-2005 11:10 AM


How many times does it need to be pointed out that Luke didn't give a date for the census and that the 6 AD census is a reasonable match for the information he does give us ?
THe argument is not that Luke is wrong. it is that Luke does not agree with Matthew.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 06-20-2005 11:10 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by adrenalinejunkie, posted 06-20-2005 3:54 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 58 by randman, posted 06-20-2005 6:46 PM PaulK has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 50 of 94 (218218)
06-20-2005 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by randman
06-20-2005 11:10 AM


What would his motive to lie be here?
People can and are often mistaken without lying. I'll cite you as an example. I don't think you are lying I just think you are wrong. Luke could have heard it wrong, misremembered it, got it confused with somehting else. This happens all the time.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 06-20-2005 11:10 AM randman has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 51 of 94 (218223)
06-20-2005 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by randman
06-20-2005 11:10 AM


Sigh, you don't understand what the 'arguement from silence' is. The
arguement form silence is NOT a logical fallacy. It does deal with
probablities though. The more information we have, the more probable
that the arguement from silence is correct. When it comes to the cencus
we have extremely good reason to say that the earlier cencus did not occur. We have plenty of documentation that any cencus that took place did not involve Judah, or people from Galilee needing to travel to Bethlaham to be counted (even if it was the Luke censuc alone, that particular claim is totally ridiculous).
Second of all, there is no evidence that isn't distorted or read into beyond reasonbleness that QUntarsis was govenor of syria twice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 06-20-2005 11:10 AM randman has not replied

  
adrenalinejunkie
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 94 (218230)
06-20-2005 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by ramoss
06-19-2005 4:04 PM


I have been talking about the world-wide census of 8 B.C., which IS before, like I said. The article you claimed was "proven" wrong because of the date of Herod's death was also talking about the 8 B.C. census, not anything in 6 A.D. So we're arguing apples and oranges a bit here. It's a fairly common belief that Luke was referring to the 8 B.C. census, -probably THE most common belief since most Bible scholars place the birth of Christ between 4-7 B.C. Not saying conclusively that they're right, it's just the common belief. Luke doesn't specify a date, just who was ruling at that time. Archaeological evidence is there (reportedly) to support the idea that Quirinius was governor previous to the census in 6 A.D. although I'm sure it is disputed since that would take away some of the argument against Luke. It is not a stretch, however, to believe that Herod's jurisdiction was included in the 8 B.C. census which netted something like 4.2 million Roman citizens, and our assumption that no taxation could happen until 6 A.D. seems a bit suspect to me.
This is a direct quote from Josephus, concerning the break up of Herod's kingdom after his death:
So Caesar, after he had heard both sides, dissolved the assembly for that time; but a few days afterward, he gave the one half of Herod's kingdom to Archelaus, by the name of Ethnarch, and promised to make him king also afterward, if he rendered himself worthy of that dignity. But as to the other half, he divided it into two tetrarchies, and gave them to two other sons of Herod, the one of them to Philip, and the other to that Antipas who contested the kingdom with Archelaus. Under this last was Perea and Galilee, with a revenue of two hundred talents; but Batanea, and Trachonitis, and Auranitis, and certain parts of Zeno's house about Jamnia, with a revenue of a hundred talents, were made subject to Philip; while Idumea, and all Judea, and Samaria were parts of the ethnarchy of Archelaus, although Samaria was eased of one quarter of its taxes, out of regard to their not having revolted with the rest of the nation.
This was prior to Judea becoming a province, nevertheless here we have Caesar making decision in the region concerning taxation.
It's also interesting to note two things. At least to me.
First, a sarcastic one. I can find no mention of Quirinius, or Quintarsis as you wrote, when doing a search of Josephus' works "The Wars of the Jews" or "The Antiquities of the Jews." Using the current arguments, I suppose that means that Quirinius never actually existed since holding such an important position would have surely been noted by the Jewish historian! After all, no way a census could have taken place without such a mention either. -according to the current debate.
Secondly, since we are giving Josephus such weight in this debate, does this also mean the book of Daniel has now been proven prophetic and written previous to Alexander the Great's conquests? Josephus gives a record of the priests at Jerusalem showing Alexander (as he marched on Jerusalem) where he was prophesied in the Book of Daniel, upon which Alexander was so impressed he not only spared the city of Jerusalem, but allowed the Jews to continue to practice their religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by ramoss, posted 06-19-2005 4:04 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by ramoss, posted 06-20-2005 6:28 PM adrenalinejunkie has replied

  
adrenalinejunkie
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 94 (218234)
06-20-2005 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by PaulK
06-20-2005 11:12 AM


Paul, you artifically concluding the Bible wrong by insisting Luke is referring to the census in A.D. 6. If your assumption is correct then yes, but most Bible scholars don't believe Luke is referring to that census. Most Bible scholars from everything I've been reading believe the birth of Christ came between 4-7 B.C. and therefore believe Luke was referring to the census in 8 B.C. One of the 3 world-wide census' taken by Augustus.
Quirinius is the real issue I would think. The question is probably whether or not the Greek phrase used by Luke should be translated "prior" or "before" he was govenor, which it can be and has been in other places, although I would probably think in this case it has been correctly translated the way it is. Which then leads to the question of if Quirinius was a governor or leader of some sort during the census of 8 B.C. EDIT: Actually, as in the post below, I'm a little more inclined to believe that Quirinius only served ONE term, and that Luke was stating in Luke 2:2 that the taxation didn't come into being or take affect until Quirinius. So perhaps the issue isn't Quirinius but what we assume from what Luke actually wrote.
This message has been edited by adrenalinejunkie, 06-20-2005 04:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by PaulK, posted 06-20-2005 11:12 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by adrenalinejunkie, posted 06-20-2005 4:25 PM adrenalinejunkie has not replied
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 06-20-2005 4:56 PM adrenalinejunkie has not replied

  
adrenalinejunkie
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 94 (218238)
06-20-2005 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by adrenalinejunkie
06-20-2005 3:54 PM


I'm going to do something weird and look at what the Bible is actually saying here. (sorry about the KJV version)
Luk 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
Luk 2:2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
Luk 2:3 An all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
Hey by the way, I did find a reference to Cyrenius who "took account of the estates of the Jews" in Josephus so I guess that's the name he's under. That's all it said though in either of the two books I was looking in.
Verse 1 makes it plain this order went out into all the world from Augustus. This was not portrayed as something just for the Jews since they had become a province in A.D. 6, but seems to indicate to me it would be one of the 3 census' taken by Augustus, which he listed as part of his 35 greatest achievements. What I've read said those census' were in 28 BC, 8 BC and 14 AD.
The word taxed used in these verses literally means to enroll, tax, or write -like copy or list.
The second verse is a paranthesis: (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) That was interesting because a paranthesis is always an aside to clarify something that needs to be understood. The word taxing was related to the above one, of course, but in this case literally means: this enrollement or this assesment was first (which literally means the foremost, best, something first as in most important, beginning.) So this enrollment was foremost or of primary importance made (made literally means: caused to me, come into being) when Quirinius/Cyrenius was govenor of Syria.
So Augustus has a census in 8 B.C, but as people have claimed, no way a tax could be placed on Judea until Quirinius was governor in AD 6. However, if we pay attention to the Greek here, Luke says this taxing, assesment, enrollment primarily came into affect, when Quirinius was governor of Syria... which... agrees with history.
Suddenly I'm wondering what all the fuss is about. This baby isn't nearly as cut and dried as we've all been claiming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by adrenalinejunkie, posted 06-20-2005 3:54 PM adrenalinejunkie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 06-20-2005 5:01 PM adrenalinejunkie has replied

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


Message 55 of 94 (218243)
06-20-2005 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by adrenalinejunkie
06-20-2005 3:54 PM


No, there is nothing artifical at all in my reasoning. If Bible scholars reject that idea (and we have no evience that serious scholars do - the websites that have been referred to so far are strictly amateur). And nobody who believes that the Lustrum censuses of the Res Gestae represent "world-wide" censuses is worthy of the title of scholar. Those were restricted to Roman citizens - the main purpose of them is the correct allocation of voting rights. As I have already explained - so you have no excuse for producing this falsehood yet again.
If Qirinius is the issue you lose again. Because we know that he presided over the 6 AD census. And there is no evidence that he was even in Judaea prior to that.
The attempt to make Luke say that the census was before that of Quirinius is also rejected as an invalid translation by three sources.
But here is what one BIble scholar - a conservative Christian has to say:
Page not found | Bible.org
...many scholars believe that Luke was thinking about the census in AD 6-7, when Quirinius was governor of Syria.
...a far more natural translation would be This is the first census . . .
Evangelicals often have a tendency to find implausible solutions to difficulties in the Bible and to be satisfied that they have once again vindicated the Word of God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by adrenalinejunkie, posted 06-20-2005 3:54 PM adrenalinejunkie has not replied

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


Message 56 of 94 (218244)
06-20-2005 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by adrenalinejunkie
06-20-2005 4:25 PM


So your answer is that there is no problem - provided you don't care about the evidence or the truth.
That in itself says plenty about your religion, doesn't it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by adrenalinejunkie, posted 06-20-2005 4:25 PM adrenalinejunkie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by adrenalinejunkie, posted 06-20-2005 8:11 PM PaulK has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 57 of 94 (218249)
06-20-2005 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by adrenalinejunkie
06-20-2005 3:43 PM


There was no evidence for a world wide census in 8 B.C. Augustus ceasar would not have had the authority to conduct an censuc in Juddah at that time anyway, since Juddah was offically a seperate kingdom. (Can you get that through your head), Third of all, there is no evidence that Quintarsis was govenor of syria at this time.
We know that there was a census in 6 C.E, under quintaris, because Joepshus mentioned it in Antiquties, at the time that Judah became a providence of Syria. We have zero evidence of a 8 B.C. census. We have zero credible evidence that Quintaris was a govenor of syria before 6 C.E.
Other than pure speculation, show otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by adrenalinejunkie, posted 06-20-2005 3:43 PM adrenalinejunkie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by adrenalinejunkie, posted 06-20-2005 8:16 PM ramoss has replied
 Message 63 by adrenalinejunkie, posted 06-20-2005 8:33 PM ramoss has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 58 of 94 (218252)
06-20-2005 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by PaulK
06-20-2005 11:12 AM


PaulK, the problem is considering it a reasonable assessment that LUke refers to the later census, and for 2 reasons.
Luke 1:5 indicates that Herod was king when God began dealing with Zecharias in the Temple about John the Baptist and struck him dumb for unbelief. Now, it does not say how long he could not speak exactly, but if you read the passage, it says "after a time" Elizabeth conceived and "hid herself 5 months."
It's hard to say, but there is no mention of Herod dying. The implication is he was probably still king, although it does not exactly say.
Luke refers to the later taxation for sure in Acts.
So the question is whether Luke is referring to a cencus taken while Herod was king?
The language raises this same issue. The KJV reads "this taxing was first made when.."
Well, if there was just one major taxation period, the famous one resulting in revolts, which Luke refers to in Acts, then why the "first made" comment?
Without additional records, it is unreasonable to assert there was not an earlier census. Luke seems to suggest there was a census in Herod's day. He does not explicitly state that, but it is suggested by the text, and considering Luke is itself part of valid historical record, as much as Josephus, it is just a guess to say that Luke and Matthew contradict one another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by PaulK, posted 06-20-2005 11:12 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 06-21-2005 3:03 AM randman has replied

  
adrenalinejunkie
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 94 (218254)
06-20-2005 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by crashfrog
06-19-2005 12:31 PM


Nobody tells a Bible commentator what to write about. Just their own thoughts and study and research. The Scofield Study Bible, the John MacArthur commentaries, the Dake Study Bible, the Ryrie, Matthew Henry, Andrew Murray, Charles Spurgeon, and literally hundreds more... just wrote what they thought, the conclusions of their own studies. Simple as that really.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2005 12:31 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
adrenalinejunkie
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 94 (218260)
06-20-2005 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by PaulK
06-20-2005 5:01 PM


Oh, I think proposing a conclusion that is false, then claiming there can be no other conclusion therefore the Bible is false... is ignoring evidence and truth.
I think making all sorts of claims of what the Bible said in English, when it was written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, and determining beforehand a translation to English that will contradict itself, then claiming the text is false because of the translation you chose, is ignoring evidence and truth.
I think claiming Biblical scholars presuppose an idea when the majority of scholars actually do not, is ignoring evidence and truth.
Bottom line is, all I did was look up the Greek words, which it was originally written in. Can't really help it, if that changes people's assumptions. What you should have come back with is a question about how Mary and Joseph could have been counted if they weren't Roman citizens, or that there is no evidence the 8 B.C. census was applied to Quirinius or somehow made part of his "assesment." Because even taking the Greek into consideration, those questions would remain. But.... you really had nothing but insults. No evidence, not truth, no real discussion.
What does that say about your world view? (your question, not mine) I'm sorta bound by what the text says myself -seeing how it was written in Greek and all, can't just claim the Bible says something it doesn't, or read into the text something that isn't there. Never said a thing that wasn't in the Greek definition of the words I was looking at. It's that evidence and truth thing again.
This message has been edited by adrenalinejunkie, 06-21-2005 12:16 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 06-20-2005 5:01 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 06-21-2005 3:19 AM adrenalinejunkie has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024