The Inerrancy of the Bible

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 - LiviusLets have some evidence. I get tired of dealing with the inventions of apologists who will make up anything rather than accept the truth.

PaulK, It appears the eclipse in 4 B.C. was only a partial eclipse, the one in 1 B.C. was a full eclipse of the sun. Its this eclipse in 1 B.C. thats believed by some scholars that more correctly correlates the time of Herods death. There is also evidence Herod the Great died when he was 70 years old, that this too places his death at 1 B.C.The issue is the date of Jesus birth, and so far you have not addressed John the Baptists mention in Luke in respect to Tiberius Caesars rule, to the correlating of Jesus birth to be 2 B.C.This too like the full eclipse happening in 1 B.C., and the age of Herod at his death off all support the birth of Christ happened 2 B.C. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 148 [vi, 1]; XIV, 158 [ix, 2])Herod the Great - WikipediaHerod the Great
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.Date of His Death
Some chronologers hold that he died in the year 5 or 4 BC. Their chronology is based to a large extent on Josephus’ history. In dating the time that Herod was appointed king by Rome, Josephus uses a "consular dating", that is, he locates the event as occurring during the rule of certain Roman consuls. According to this, Herod's appointment as king would be in 40 BC, but the data of another historian, Appianos, would place the event in 39 BC. By the same method Josephus places Herod's capture of Jerusalem in 37 BC, but he also says that this occurred 27 years after the capture of the city by Pompey (which was in 63 BC). (Jewish Antiquities, XIV, 487, 488 [xvi, 4]) His reference to that latter event would make the date of Herod's taking the city of Jerusalem 36 BC. Now, Josephus says that Herod died 37 years from the time that he was appointed king by the Romans, and 34 years after he took Jerusalem. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 190, 191 [viii, 1]) This might indicate that the date of his death was 2 BC or perhaps 1 BC.According to Josephus, Herod died not long after an eclipse of the moon and before a Passover. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 167 [vi, 4]; 213 [ix, 3]) Since there was an eclipse on March 11, 4 BC. (March 13, Julian), some have concluded that this was the eclipse referred to by Josephus.On the other hand, there was a total eclipse of the moon in 1 BC, about three months before Passover, while the one in 4 BC was only partial.Another line of calculation centers around the age of Herod at the time of his death. Josephus says that he was about 70 years old. He says that at the time Herod received his appointment as governor of Galilee (which is generally dated 47 BC), he was 15 years old; but this has been understood by scholars to be an error, 25 years evidently being intended. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 148 [vi, 1]; XIV, 158 [ix, 2]) Accordingly, Herod's death occurred in 2 BC or 1 BC.

quote:

---

I've already agreed with purpledawn that I can accept it figuratively. This means I can accept definition (1a).

---

You can't agree with me if I didn't say it was figurative for Satan. You agree with Strong's which gives all the meanings of the word as it stands today. I contend that the word "helel" DOES NOT mean the Devil or Satan!The Lucifer link I provided shows that "lucifer" with its current meaning of Satan is not the meaning of "helel."I also showed you that the Jewish View of Satan has nothing to do with a fallen deity. Therefore the taunt in Isaiah has nothing to do with the Christian Devil, figuratively or otherwise.Read carefully and comprehend!
(The paragraph breaks are mine to make it easier to read.) I repeat: If you define Lucifer as Satan, it is not an accurate translation of the Hebrew word "helel." Septuagint
Here is where we find the name Lucifer. The term Lucifer comes not from the Hebrew or even from the Greek translation (Septuagint), but from the 4th century AD Latin translation...If you wish to continue stating that the Hebrew word "helel" refers to Satan, then you need to show evidence other than Strong's Concordance which gives all possible definitions (past and present).I still contend that the word "helel" DOES NOT mean the Devil or Satan and you have not proven otherwise. So the KJV is still in error in translating the word "helel."

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

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 ?

purpledawn, I think this is a more correct interpretation of Lucifer, that Satan was being worshipped by the king of Babylon as Helel. That the Babylonian God(Lucifer) helel could not save the King of Babylon nor even prevent God from casting him (lucifer also called Satan) down out of heaven. I feel the fiery flaming serpent mentioned in the 14th chapter of Isaiah is referring to that old serpent also called the devil. Helel is refering a light that fell from heaven and how great a fall it was. The Lord Jesus referred to the serpents poisons in Luke 10:19, after mentioning how Satan fell from heaven as lightning from heaven.P.S. I guess were finally to the point that I can only agree that we disagree.Error 404 - Not FoundLuke 10:18 And he said to them, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.In that context, verses 12-21 are a poetic picture of that downfall. Helel, morning star, and Shahar, dawn, then, are references to the Babylonian gods who could not save the king, and are themselves to be cast down.

PaulK: I gave up arguing the Josephus-based dating of the supposed census (that did not require registration by residents of Nazareth in the first place) several pages ago. Tom will never concede and continually refers to calendar corrections for which he cannot provide substantiation. Give up, PaulK; Tom wins by ignorant persistence ... a common tactic for his side.

PaulK. When you take into account John the Baptist ministry starting in the spring of the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar its obvious that one can only take Jesus being born Sept 29, 2 B.C.P.S. Its quite interesting the day we celebrate the Lord Jesus birth December 25th is more likely the day the only begotten Son came down from the bosom of his father in heaven to within his body (made of a woman and made under the law kjv galatians 4:4)forming within Mary. (kjv John 3:16-17 & kjv John 1:14 & kjv John 1:18).Emmanuel God with us kjv Matthew 1:23, and Mary saying: My soul doth magnify the Lord and my Spirit hath rejoice in God my Savior. kjv Luke 1:46-47. Mary realized he was Emmanuel her God and her Savior too. It quite interesting that she was talking to Elizabeth who was at that point 6 months pregnant with John the Baptist kjv Luke 1:36. and that Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost and said to Mary blessed is the fruit of thy womb. It says in kjv luke 1:35 that the holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.This meaning if you know when John the Baptist was born you know when the Lord Jesus was birthed. If you check it out based on the reign of Augusta Caesar reign and Tiberius Caesar reign the Lord Jesus body was birthed in the fall of the year 2 B.C. approximately Sept 29th, 2 B.C.This message has been edited by Tom, 01-16-2005 20:39 AM

It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing. You failed to show evidence that the word "helel" is equivalent to Satan.Therefore the KJV translation is in error.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Except, of course, even if Herod died in 1 B.C. (which is not believed by the vast majority of historians BTW), it STILL wouldn't matter.The census mention in luke could not have happend before 6 C.E., which was AFTTR Herod died.

purpledawn, The Secrets of Enoch, while not the bible interestingly says that Satan was created on the second creation day. He was created along with all the angels as angels of light. Satan however it says concieved an impossible thought to place his throne higher than the clouds above the earth, that he might become equal in rank to Gods power. It says that God threw him out of the heights along with his angels and he is continually flying above the bottomless.kjv Isaiah 14:12 appears to me to be literally correct, for one of the meanings given for helel is light bearer. It says the Word (God the Son) was before all that is was (kjv John 1:1-3), so Satan was made through the God the Son (the Word), and the Son himself said that he saw Satan fall as lightning from the heavens (kjv Luke 10:18). I guess I have to believe the Words as written (light bearer = Lucifer = Satan)cause everything too me suggest that Satan is the fiery flying serpent in respect to Isaiah 14:29.kjv Luk 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.H1966

he^yle^l
BDB Definition:
Lucifer = light-bearer
1) shining one, morning star, Lucifer
1a) of the king of Babylon and Satan (figuratively)
2) (TWOT) ‘Helel’ describing the king of Babylon
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H1984 (in the sense of brightness)
Same Word by TWOT Number: 499ahttp://reluctant-messenger.com/2enoch01-68.htm#Chapter29Chapter 29Then it became evening, and then again morning, and it was the second [Monday]; The fiery essence1And for all the heavenly troops I imaged the image and essence of fire, and my eye looked at the very hard, firm rock, and from the gleam of my eye the lightning received its wonderful nature, which is both fire in water and water in fire, and one does not put out the other, nor does the one dry up the other, therefore the lightning is brighter than the sun, softer than water and firmer than hard rock.2And from the rock I cut off a great fire, and from the fire I created the orders of the incorporeal ten troops of angels, and their weapons are fiery and their raiment a burning flame, and I commanded that each one should stand in his order.3And one from out the order of angels, having turned away with the order that was under him, conceived an impossible thought, to place his throne higher than the clouds above the earth, that he might become equal in rank to my power.4And I threw him out from the height with his angels, and he was flying in the air continuously above the bottomless.

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.

no, your BIBLE DICTIONARY makes reference to both the king of babylon and satan. that's the first hint that you actually don't know what you're talking about. concordances don't define anything: they list words and where they appear. dictionaries provide definitions. rather clear distinction, but even some publishers mix the two up.the second hint is of course that you TRUST said bible dictionary. never, ever trust just your bible dictionary. most are filled with more dogma than useful information, and this one is case in point.the word lucifer appears exactly ONCE in the kjv, and even less often in most other translations. the context for the word could imply an underlying mythological reference, but it seems to apply to the king of babylon. the mythological bit is probably a babylonian legend, not a hebrew one, and has nothing to do with satan or the devil.i think you will find that entire story you know of was extracted from a misreading of this verse, a verse in one of the gospels, and a few in revelation (which are prophetic). excuse me? ok, i can find a lot of racism and prejudice in the bible, but THIS is not one of those instances. and god has not made anything clear.and if you ask the palestinians, they're fighting for their own promised land. the passage in question, which i quoted almost ALL OF regard babylon. not palestine, it's closer to iraq. sorry, you'll have to forgive me. i'm a literalist, as it turns out. this passage is about the king of babylon, and ONLY the king of babylon. nothing about casting satan down, satan is not the one ruling over israel and judah, and satan is not a destroyer of nations. babylon is.revelation does use babylon metaphorically, but isaiah IS NOT. we're discussing isaiah 14:1-21, the passage dealing with "heylel." this is a separate section, even if it is the same chapter. if you have a properly rendered bible, you'll notice that verse 1-4 are prose, and 4-21 are poetry (song). it picks up as prose again in 22, and poetry again in 24. the prose are headings (probably added at a later date) to the songs, and divide them. the poem here is a separate entity.remember, chapters and verse numbers are a system added by christians, not the original authors.and no, it's not about the present state of israel. assyria as an empire hasn't existed for about 2000 years -- babylon pretty much beat them out. assyria is, again, more in the iraq area. this, btw is the THIRD separate poem in isaiah 14. just so we know what's going on here. and my bible says philistia. but it's sort of a similar idea. no.it says do not rejoice because king ahaz is dead, because his death will bring more trouble to them. no, let me paint the picture for you in better modern english.ahaz is the snake, and his head has been chopped off. the philistines are dancing around it's corpse because their trouble is gone. but from the neck springs an even more venomous foe.that's what the verse is saying. it's probably refering, figuratively, to ahaz's heir.

quote:

---

verse 1

​

But the LORD will pardon Jacob, and will again choose Israel, and will settle them on their own soil. And strangers shall join them and shall cleave to the House of Jacob... [to become slaves]

---

quote:

---

verse 32 (last verse)

​

And what will he answer the messengers of any nation?
That Zion has been established by the LORD:
In it, the needy of His people shall find shelter.

---

no, actually, i see no relation. how many "god loves us" passages do you think i can find in isaiah, let alone the rest of the bible? the idea of god setting up zion is so commonplace it even makes it into bad matrix sequels.the first verse says that god will forgive israel, and that they will enslave their masters. the last says that the israelites in need will find refuge. the first verse is speaking, in prose, of the entire promised land, and the last in poetry about jerusalem. they have very little in common except the idea of god being particular about them and their homeland, which the bible is practically deep-fried in.moreover, they're in completely separate sections. the first bit is a heading probably not in the original writings of isaiah, and the last bit is part of the poetry two whole poems later. they probably weren't even written by the same person.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 01-17-2005 05:07 AM

the kjv is not in error. "lucifer" is a perfectly acceptible rendering of "heylel." it's the people who think it's talking about satan that are in error.

ok, let's play the put up or shut up game. how about in the bible? book, chapter and verse? in regards to satan being an "angel of light" or the existance of said angels, book, chapter and verse? book, chapter and verse? book, chapter and verse?

quote:

---

Luk 10:17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
Luk 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
Luk 10:19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
Luk 10:20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

---

where is the proof that this anything to do with a war in heaven, as opposed to power over temptation and testing? jesus would have used satan in the jewish sense, being a jew. to jews, satan is one of the angels of the lord who tests men. the verse makes perfect sense that way. book, chapter, verse? show me proof that lucifer = satan. i've already posted the entire context of the only mention of the name lucifer. that would be a seraph, not an angel. know what else were seraphs? the things that plagued the israelites in numbers, that moses made an idol of, nailed to a cross, and used to take away the afflictions of the people. so if we're gonna go strictly metaphorical now... well don't.

Nice story in Enoch, but it still does not associate the morning star, Venus, with Satan.Isaiah is not talking about a fallen angel.Satan is not associated with the planet Venus. Everything that falls is not Satan. Satan is an adversary. Venus was considered a bright star. Venus did not fall from the sky and it was not cast down to earth.As I said before, the original meaning of "lucifer" which was light-bearer was an adequate translation in its day. Once "lucifer" became associated with the Christian thought of Satan as a demon, then using the word "lucifer" to mean the morning star is incorrect.You cause yourself problems if you really want Satan associated with the morning star. The word used for "morning star" is phosphoros which in Strong's means:
light bringing, giving light
the planet Venus, the morning star, day star
metaph. ChristCongratulations! You have now associated Christ with Satan. Personally, I would prefer that the KJV be in error than for Christ to be Satan.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.