Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the Bible Totally reliable ? The Nativity
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 16 of 94 (217174)
06-15-2005 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by PaulK
06-15-2005 2:15 AM


Actually, there is evidence for someone being governor twice during that time so you are incorrect to state 0 evidence.
The Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2005 2:15 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by ramoss, posted 06-15-2005 3:22 PM randman has replied
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2005 5:42 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 17 of 94 (217206)
06-15-2005 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
06-15-2005 1:59 PM


Actually, you are totally incorrect. A stone with a name totally wiped out, and having it specularted that it might be quintarsis is not evidence of anything, but rather evidence of strong straw clutching by appologists.
Nor, does anything this link have in it addresses the fact that Ceasar augustus did not have the authority to order a census in Judah during the reign of Herod the king.
The whole bit of speculation about planetary conjunctions is pretty weak too. It is a fun piece of mental gymnastics, but hardly means anything what so ever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 06-15-2005 1:59 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by randman, posted 06-15-2005 3:36 PM ramoss has not replied

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


Message 18 of 94 (217212)
06-15-2005 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by ramoss
06-15-2005 3:22 PM


Someone had to be governor. The details match Quintarsis. So I consider it decent evidence, considering that we don't exactly have full records.
On the Herod's jurisdiction thing, you have a point, but not knowing myself how the relationship between Rome and Herod was, I am not sure it is valid.
But I haven't really looked into it all yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ramoss, posted 06-15-2005 3:22 PM ramoss has not replied

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


Message 19 of 94 (217234)
06-15-2005 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
06-15-2005 1:59 PM


The fragment fits Calpurnius Piso better and it does not state that the person it refers to governed Syria twice. The site linked to below includes an illustration of the stone and a translation and it does not seem that there is room for there to be to governorships of Syria - let alone appointments inbetween.
Richard Carrier Quirinius » Internet Infidels
The site you refer to makes a number of errors. Here is one:
quote:
...the taking of several empire-wide censuses is one of the accomplishments which Augustus commanded to be engraved on his monument.
The censuses referred to - on the Res Gestae - are the supposedly regular Lustrum censuse of Roman citizens. The count of Roman citizens is clearly stated on the monument. These cannot be Luke's census - even after the Romans annexed Judaea the ordinary inhabitants would not have been citizens of Rome.
If he author had bothered to do basic research he would have dicovered this. Likely he simply copied it from someone else who had not bothered to properly investigate the issue either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 06-15-2005 1:59 PM randman has not replied

  
gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 94 (217236)
06-15-2005 5:53 PM


Let's not forget the fact that there are like 3-4 conflicting Easter stories too.
This to me instantly discredits the Bible as being historically reliable.

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by adrenalinejunkie, posted 06-17-2005 6:04 PM gnojek has not replied

  
adrenalinejunkie
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 94 (217739)
06-17-2005 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by gnojek
06-15-2005 5:53 PM


The Easter stories are easy to reconcile, just impossible to convince the already convinced. For instance, I went to a protest last week and debated and discussed with a guy from the "Free Thinkers" at the University of Arkansas. Now if you ask my friend Pat, he may tell you WE went to the same protest and spoke to TWO guys from the "Free Thinkers." Pat mostly spoke to one guy, I mostly spoke with another. I spoke to a guy, we both spoke with two. Both accounts are actually true.
And I left out the fact that John was with me the first time I was there, but I had to leave and come back. Nevertheless, my first statement was still correct. I DID go to a protest and speak to a guy from the "Free Thinkers." Now substitute angels for Free Thinkers, and Mary Magdalene for John and you're on the right track. All the while remembering you are reading a personal story, not a comprehensive recreation.
ANYWAY, as to the census deal. I thought this excerpt was pretty good. Had several references etc...
This void in extant information that would provide definitive archaeological confirmation notwithstanding, sufficient evidence does exist to postulate a plausible explanation for Luke’s allusions, thereby rendering the charge of discrepancy ineffectual. Being the meticulous historian that he was, Luke demonstrated his awareness of a separate provincial census during Quirinius’ governorship beginning in A.D. 6 (Acts 5:37). In view of this familiarity, he surely would not have confused this census with one taken ten or more years earlier. Hence Luke claimed that a prior census was, indeed, taken at the command of Caesar Augustus sometime prior to 4 B.C. He flagged this earlier census by using the expression prote egeneto (first took place)which assumes a later one (cf. Nicoll, n.d., 1:471). To question the authenticity of this claim, simply because no explicit reference has yet been found, is unwarranted and prejudicial. No one questions the historicity of the second census taken by Quirinius about A.D. 6/7, despite the fact that the sole authority for it is a single inscription found in Venice. Sir William Ramsay, world-renowned and widely acclaimed authority on such matters, wrote over one hundred years ago: [W]hen we consider how purely accidental is the evidence for the second census, the want of evidence for the first seems to constitute no argument against the trustworthiness of Luke’s statement (1897, p. 386).
In addition, historical sources indicate that Quirinius was favored by Augustus, and was in active service of the emperor in the vicinity of Syria previous to and during the time period that Jesus was born. It is reasonable to conclude that Quirinius could have been appointed by Caesar to instigate a census-enrollment during that time frame, and his competent execution of such could have earned for him a repeat appointment for the A.D. 6/7 census (see Archer, 1982, p. 366). Notice also that Luke did not use the term legatusthe normal title for a Roman governor. He used the participial form of hegemon that was used for a Propraetor (senatorial governor), or Procurator (like Pontius Pilate), or Quaestor (imperial commissioner) [McGarvey and Pendleton, n.d., p. 28]. After providing a thorough summary of the historical and archaeological data pertaining to this question, Finnegan concluded: Thus the situation presupposed in Luke 2:3 seems entirely plausible (1959, 2:261).
Luke, Quirinius, and the Census - Apologetics Press

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by gnojek, posted 06-15-2005 5:53 PM gnojek has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 06-17-2005 6:40 PM adrenalinejunkie has replied

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


Message 22 of 94 (217747)
06-17-2005 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by adrenalinejunkie
06-17-2005 6:04 PM


There are a number of problems with the apologetics press article,.
Firstly there is no reason to assume that Luke confused the censuses - the 10 or more years previously is based on Matthew - not on Luke.
The reading of Luke appaealed to ahs been identified as an unacceptable misreading by at least three of the sources I have looked up - one himself a Conservative Christian scholar.
The claim that the census is questioned simply because there is no specific reference to it is a misrepresentation. Such a census would be highly unlikely. Quirinius seems to have been elsewhere (fighting a war in modern Turkey) - and there is no indication that he was in Judaea at the time. Of course the lack of any historical record is imprtant given that it would have been an important political event (a serious threat to Herod's continued rule) so the absence of any record is not insignificant. The evidence for the census of 6 AD, however is hardly accidental. It is recorded by Josephus, as we would expect for an important political development. Moreover it is entirely expected that the Romans would hold a census to assess taxation on annexation of the province.
I repeat again that there is no major evidence internal to Luke to suppose that he refers to any census but that of 6 AD. That census is as good a match as we can expect to find, it is unlikely that there was any earlier census nor is it especially probable that Quirinius specifically would be sent to run a census in the likely event that one had taken place. In short the 6 AD census fits and it is unlikely speculation to say that there was an earlier census at all - let alone one that fits as well as the known census of 6 AD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by adrenalinejunkie, posted 06-17-2005 6:04 PM adrenalinejunkie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by adrenalinejunkie, posted 06-17-2005 10:14 PM PaulK has replied

  
adrenalinejunkie
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 94 (217778)
06-17-2005 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by PaulK
06-17-2005 6:40 PM


then try this one
When did the Luke 2 census occur? - ChristianAnswers.Net
How can the Bible be correct (in The Gospel According to Luke, chapter 2, verse 2) when claiming that the great census decreed by Rome's Caesar Augustus about the time of Jesus' birth circa 4-5 B.C. occurred "when Quirinius was governor" if Quirinius (or Cyrenius) didn't even become governor until the year 6 A.D.?! Isn't this a clear case of the Bible being in error on matters of history?
Sensible Solution
No so fast. Critics used this text for many years to make their case for a Bible that is unreliable. But no more. Today, there are a number of reasons for giving Luke the benefit of the doubt. Over and over (in references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands) the doctor has proven himself to be a reliable historian, as demonstrated by famed scholar and archaeologist, Sir William Ramsey.
See ChristianAnswers' Web Bible Encyclopedia: What is a census?
To date, the only census documented outside the Bible near this time under Quirinius is the one referred to by the historian Josephus (Antiquities XVIII, 26 [ii.1], which he says took place in 6 A.D.
But notice that Luke 2:2 says that the census taken around the time Joseph and Mary went down to Bethlehem was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. This implies that there was a later census--most likely the one referred to by Josephus--which Dr. Luke would have also certainly known about.
There is good reason to believe that Quirinius was actually twice in a position of command (the Greek expression hegemoneuo in Luke 2:2 which is often translated "governor" really just means "to be leading" or "in charge of") over the province of Syria, which included Judea as a political subdivision. The first time would have been when he was leading military action against the Homonadensians during the period between 12 and 2 B.C. His title may even have been "military governor."
A Latin inscription discovered in 1764 adds weight to the idea that Quirinius was in a position of authority in Syria on two separate occasions. There was definitely a taxing during this time and therefore, quite possible, an associated census, the details of which may have been common knowledge in Luke's time, but are now lost to us.
Scholars have advanced a number of other altogether viable explanations which would allow Luke's record (and therefore the Bible) to continue to be regarded as 100% trustworthy.
...................
I think 2000 years from now, historians may find it quite unlikely that the United States elected president Bush via a Supreme Court decision, but nevertheless every once in awhile, unlikely events occur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 06-17-2005 6:40 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by ramoss, posted 06-17-2005 11:54 PM adrenalinejunkie has replied
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 06-18-2005 5:31 AM adrenalinejunkie has not replied

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


Message 24 of 94 (217800)
06-17-2005 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by adrenalinejunkie
06-17-2005 10:14 PM


Sigh,
You are wrong about the latin inscription.. and besides it would not matter if Quintarsis was in a position of power twice or not.
The fact of the matter that Augustus Ceasar could NOT have ordered a census in Judah until 6 C.E... because that is the year that Judah was made part of the providence of Syria. That is mutually exclusive to the account in Matthew, where Herod the King allegedly gathered up baby boys and had them killed (of which there is no record of this).
I am sure that Luke meant the census in 6 c.e., and that is an historical event. However, the story about how mary and joesheph were
in bethleham is very fanciful, and the reason is not based on history..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by adrenalinejunkie, posted 06-17-2005 10:14 PM adrenalinejunkie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by adrenalinejunkie, posted 06-18-2005 11:44 AM ramoss has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 25 of 94 (217811)
06-18-2005 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by PaulK
03-29-2005 5:24 PM


I don't want to debate this as the facts are way too hard to check out and there's too much question about what they all mean. I'll trust the Biblical record as written and if you want to doubt it that's your business. But I did find this discussion I thought I'd post. I think it answers some of the sticky points:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html
This message has been edited by Faith, 06-18-2005 06:26 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by PaulK, posted 03-29-2005 5:24 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by ramoss, posted 06-18-2005 9:11 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 26 of 94 (217812)
06-18-2005 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by adrenalinejunkie
06-17-2005 10:14 PM


That one is even worse.
The census of 6 AD was almost certainly the first - but there is no implication that a later one was also taken under Quirinius.
The vague reference to inscriptions discovered in the 17rh Century is probably the so-called "Antioch Stones" discovered in Turkey and referring to "Pisidean Antioch", a local town or city. I've seen translatiosn of these inscriptions and they don't seem to relate to a Governorship in Syria - more likely they relate to Quirinius command of the war in the region where they were discovered

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by adrenalinejunkie, posted 06-17-2005 10:14 PM adrenalinejunkie has not replied

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


Message 27 of 94 (217832)
06-18-2005 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
06-18-2005 3:46 AM


Glenn Morton recycles some old appologist claims that were long refuted.
His ciruclar logic (Luke was right because he was a good historian) does not address the fact that the birth account in Luke is mutually exclusive to the birth account in Matthew.
He is also 'missing hte mark' about the alleged earlier cencus. The was
that was alledged to have happened during the time of herod was for ROMAN CITIZENS only, and therefore the population of Judah would not be involved.
In Matthew, the claim is that Herod called for the massacre of baby boys in Bethelham at that time.. yes. However, there is NO evidence
outside of matthew that this occured.
YOu can trust the biblical record that is written if you want, but evidence shows that the birth accounts in Luke, and the birth accounts in Matthew are mutally exclusive, and it was NOT the custom/law that someone had to travel many days to with a pregnant wife to be counted. That is as phony as a 3 dollar bill.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 06-18-2005 3:46 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by adrenalinejunkie, posted 06-18-2005 12:16 PM ramoss has replied
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 06-19-2005 2:59 AM ramoss has not replied

  
adrenalinejunkie
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 94 (217853)
06-18-2005 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by ramoss
06-17-2005 11:54 PM


I just posted an article. I haven't made any claims about a latin inscription, the article did. Your quote, "I am sure that Luke meant the census in 6 c.e.," is circular reasoning. As long as Luke MEANT this, THEN the Bible is incorrect. Of course, if he didn't...
The argument is from a lack of documentation from a period when there is simply not much to begin with, over a collection of books that in other cases, has proven itself correct when later discoveries were found. The Bible USED to be wrong about the Hittites, and half a hundred other things, until more discoveries were made.
According to this website:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/J/Ju/Judea.htm
...Judah became part of the Roman Province of Judea in A.D. 6. But why did it? According to the history because "Herod Archelaus, ruled Judea so badly that he was dismissed by the Roman emperor Augustus Caesar, after an appeal from his own population."
I doubt it was business as usual to dismiss a governor because of an appeal from the population. Neither is it normal course of business for the Romans to conduct two census' so close together. Yet the evident incompetence of Herod makes it NOT fanciful that there had been problems that would have required some out of the ordinary measures.
The argument is still... there was a census in A.D. 6. We don't know of another one from any other source other than the Bible. The Bible must be wrong. The History of trying to prove the Bible wrong is not on your side.
This message has been edited by adrenalinejunkie, 06-18-2005 11:45 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by ramoss, posted 06-17-2005 11:54 PM ramoss has not replied

  
adrenalinejunkie
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 94 (217861)
06-18-2005 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ramoss
06-18-2005 9:11 AM


You guys know so many absolutes from ancient times it's amazing.
The account of Matthew and the wise men who likely came from Babylon took place up to 2 years later than the account of Luke. The Bible itself records Herod giving the order to kill children age 2 and under. The wise men came to a house, not a stable, and wherever they came from, they had traveled quite a ways. The magi were leaders themselves, advisors to kings in the east, and at the time, were upset with Rome. They rarely traveled with less than a 1000 calvary, and had likely become familiar with the scriptures because of the influence of Daniel who became their leader during the captivity. Also might explain why the Babylonians have a flood story that mirrors the Jewish one. Anyway, the stories do not take place at the same time, therefore are not mutually exclusive on the face of it.
Some more things to think about. First, about the idea people didn't have to travel: From this website http://www.orlutheran.com/census.html
But we have evidence to show that such traveling was indeed done with a Roman census, in Egypt at least. A Roman census document, dated 104 A.D., has been discovered in Egypt, in which citizens were specifically commanded to return to their original homes for the census.6 Another census document from 119 A.D. has been found in which an Egyptian man identifies himself by giving (1) his name and the names of his father, mother, and grandfather; (2) his original village; (3) his age and profession; (4) a scar above his left eyebrow; (5) his wife's name and age, his wife's father's name; (6) his son's name and age; (6) the names of other relatives living with him. The document is signed by the village registrar and three official witnesses.7 This latter document is of special interest, because it gives us an idea of the kind of information that Joseph and Mary would have had to provide for the census.
This page also presents a couple of good analysis' of the text which I thought were interesting. The most common mistake Christians and others make in regards to these debates are the assumptions of what the Bible is saying, without giving any consideration to the actual meanings and uses of the Greek and Hebrew words. We jump to conclusions based on a translation in other words, instead of the actual text which often may have words with different shades of meaning. If we do not at least consider these meanings, we are artificially proving the Bible right or wrong. -depending on our slant. The webpage said this:
What exactly was it that Caesar Augustus decreed, according to Luke 2:1? The King James Version of the Bible says, "that all the world should be taxed." Most other translations say something like "that all the world should be registered" (NRS) or "that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world" (NIV). The Greek verb is apographo, which literally means to "enroll" or "register" as in an official listing of citizens.2 What was it then, a census or a taxing? Both: It would have been a census taken in part for the purpose of assessing taxes. But only in part. Augustus was very interested in the number of citizens in his empire; he was especially interested in whether that number was growing. This probably was the primary reason for the census (see below).
But what of the census that Luke 2:1 speaks of? Is there any record outside of the Bible that Augustus ever issued such a decree? Yes. As a matter of fact he authorized three censuses during this reign. How do we know this? The three censuses are listed in the Acts of Augustus, a list of what Augustus thought were the 35 greatest achievements of his reign. He was so proud of the censuses that he ranked them eighth on the list. The Acts of Augustus were placed on two bronze plaques outside of Augustus's mausoleum after he died.
The three empire-wide censuses were in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14 A.D. In all probability the one in 8 B.C. is the one the Luke mentions in the Christmas story. Even though scholarship normally dates Christ's birth between 4 and 7 B.C., the 8 B.C. census fits because in all likelihood it would have taken several years for the bureaucracy of the census to reach Palestine.
The only apparent difficulty with identifying the census that Luke mentions in the Christmas story with the one in 8 B.C. is, ironically, something Luke seemingly included to clarify the dating. He tells us in 2:2 that "this was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governing Syria." Seems simple. All we have to do is find out exactly when Quirinius was governing Syria and then we will know exactly when the census was given, right? Right. But the problem is, according to records available to us, Quirinius was governor of Syria in 6-7 A.D. -- eleven years too late!
We know this because ancient historians have quite a bit to say about our man Quirinius. Roman historians Tacitus, Seutonius, and Dio Cassius, as well as Jewish historian Josephus all wrote of him.3 His full name was Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (d. 21 A.D.), who was what the Romans called a "new man." This means that he came to hold his political office on the basis of his own merits rather than by family tradition and inheritance. It was through his military conquests in Cilicia and elsewhere that Quirinius had been exalted by the emperor to the holding of governor in Syria in 6-7 A.D.
Does this mean that Luke is in error? Not at all, especially when he shows himself to be such a careful historian throughout both his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, his other historical work. Besides, we believe Luke's Gospel to be inspired by the Holy Spirit!
The key to solving this alleged puzzle, is in the phrase "first census" in the sentence, "This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governing Syria." What does Luke mean by a first census? One theory offered is that the Greek word for "first" (prote) is sometimes translated "prior to" or "before." This is a viable solution because the Greek text of Luke 2:2 can indeed be translated, "This census was before Quirinius was governing Syria."
A second theory holds that by saying "first census" Luke is telling his readers that there was another census that Quirinius oversaw. Was there a second one? Yes, and Luke mentions it in the Acts 5:37! The second census mentioned in Acts would have taken place in 6 A.D. Since it is well known that the Romans often held provincial censuses every fourteen years, it would follow that the "first census," the one at the time of Christ's birth, would have been held in approximately 8 B.C. -- if the fourteen year census cycle was in place at this time. The problem with this second solution is that Luke is specifically saying that the first census (the 8 B.C. one) took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria; and from all available extrabiblical sources, he wasn't. According to E.M. Blaiklock, however, evidence has been found that shows that Quirinius was in Syria for an earlier tour of duty, right around the time that Christ was born. He wasn't there as governor but in some other leadership capacity.4 Therefore, it is possible that Luke is alluding to this in 2:2.
Of the two theories the first has more to commend it, in my opinion. Ultimately, however, Luke was much closer to the historical sources and claims to have "investigated everything carefully" (Luke 1:3) and he did this under the Holy Spirit's inspiration. The bottom line is that the evidence that we have points to 8 B.C. as the date when the "Christmas census" would have been authorized.
That's some of the article.
This message has been edited by adrenalinejunkie, 06-18-2005 12:21 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ramoss, posted 06-18-2005 9:11 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Chiroptera, posted 06-18-2005 12:20 PM adrenalinejunkie has replied
 Message 31 by ramoss, posted 06-18-2005 12:24 PM adrenalinejunkie has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 94 (217862)
06-18-2005 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by adrenalinejunkie
06-18-2005 12:16 PM


quote:
You guys know so many absolutes from ancient times it's amazing.
Unlike the Biblical literalists, whose willingness to express uncertainty and doubt over their beliefs should be an inspiration to us all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by adrenalinejunkie, posted 06-18-2005 12:16 PM adrenalinejunkie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by adrenalinejunkie, posted 06-18-2005 12:27 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024