Is the Bible historically accurate?

[Dionysos]

you can not say, though that the old testament is wrong because there were no accurate historical records taken by anyone else in the area where the old testament takes place so is the bible historically accurate? i believe so but then again history is written by those that rule but those don't exist so you can not say that it is not historically accurate like i have stated before the bible is a book about people and it keeps very good records of those people

Yeah, that's what I'm suggesting. We can't know for sure what happened in the Bronze Age, it isn't very well documented in comparison to the Iron Age, classical ages and so on, which is where the writing of history as we begin to know it really began.

We can't say that historically it definately happened... But we also can't say that it did NOT happen because it hasn't been found, hence never exists. We have to keep an open mind and accept that some events in the Bible, regardless of whether you believe the Bible or not, may have grounding (if not distorted and excagurated in words) in actual historical events that people can't deny have a chance of happening.

 

[Ryushikaze]

you can not say, though that the old testament is wrong because there were no accurate historical records taken by anyone else in the area where the old testament takes place so is the bible historically accurate? i believe so but then again history is written by those that rule but those don't exist so you can not say that it is not historically accurate like i have stated before the bible is a book about people and it keeps very good records of those people

Yes, but so are the eddas, the epic of gilgamesh, and the vedas. And so are quite a lot of fictional works as well.

The thing is, any 'history' from before a certain point will be UTTERLY worthless, as the intent was not to make an accurate recording of events, but a great tale to inspire confidence and national/ ethnic pride.

In general, the stance people take, both with regards to historical and scientific claims is something known as 'the default claim', which is specifically that it cannot be believed or taken for granted, unless something to demonstrate it can be presented.
For example, innocent until proven guilty.
Or if there is a question about which of three events caused an accident, the default answer is 'none, until we can determine which of them, if any, caused it'.
Similarly, with regards to historical claims, we cannot simply take it as given that a history occurred, especially with multiple conflicting accounts, such as the beginning of the world in the Eddas, Vedas, Sumerian, Babylonian, Person, Biblical, etc. account. And that's why we look for empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is the reason we can be utterly certain that Julius Caesar existed, and the utter lack of this empirical evidence is why figures such as Jesus, or Romulus- Rome's legendary founder- is why the existence of such figures despite their fame seems unlikely.

Then there's the matter that evidence of one thing doesn't always prove evidence of another thing. For example, we know there was a Troy. This does not prove there was actually a Trojan war, or that if there was a war, it was of the scale described in the Illiad. If evidence that the war did happen, and was of the scale involved, and the actual warriors Homer spoke of were involved, it doesn't confirm the existence of Ares, Athena, Aphrodite, etc.

Similarly, even if the existence of a historical Jesus is confirmed, it doesn't automatically validate the idea that he was a demigod.

But yes, speaking of contradicting accounts, there are a number of these in the NT. Off the top of my head, just in the four gospels, there are two differing geneologies for the ancestry of Jesus, two very different accounts of his last words, two different accounts of the death of Judas, and three different accounts of the events surrounding his ressurection.
So as these accounts cannot all be true, so the question becomes which, if any of these contradicting accounts is the 'valid' one?
And speaking of Jesus's death, assuming we're taking the Earthquake and Darkness one, how the hell come no one recorded either of these events at this time? I mean, these were massive events, something that people could not fail to notice. Despite the events being the type to get recorded, and heck, even to mark time by, only a single source mentions them, and that's the bible itself.

 

[phantasmor]

hmm i sort of see your point somewhat see your point but , to tackle the problem of the genealogies first, in Luke it says
Luke 3:23(New International Version)


23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli

and in Mathew it says

Matthew 1:16 (New International Version)

10and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

now if you look at those you would assume they were 2 different accounts but if you look closer in Luke it says Jesus, not Joseph, was the son of Heli meaning Heli was Mary's father

now on to Jesus' last words

Matthew 27:50 NIV wrote:
50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

Mark 15: 34-37 wrote:And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

35When some of those standing near heard this, they said, "Listen, he's calling Elijah."

36One man ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to take him down," he said.

37With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.​

Luke 23:46 NIV wrote:Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.​

John 19:30 NIV wrote:When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.​

now if you look at that you would assume that they were contradicting accounts but again, when you look closer, you see they do not contradict in John it says he bowed his head and gave up his spirit how did he give up his spirit?

Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."

that is how Jesus gave up his spirit I have no idea why John did not say how Jesus gave up his spirit but he did not

now onto the resurrection, this going to be a long post, so as to not make it too long i will say that they are pretty much the same way each one choosing which details to put in and if you read

1 Corinthians 15:1-8 (New International Version)

1 Corinthians 15

The Resurrection of Christ

1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

you can easily see how all of the accounts can be used as one account

now as for the earthquake and darkness, that occurs in 3 of the accounts

45 Now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”[k]
47 Some of those who stood there, when they heard that, said, “This Man is calling for Elijah!” 48 Immediately one of them ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and offered it to Him to drink.
49 The rest said, “Let Him alone; let us see if Elijah will come to save Him.”
50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.
51 Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split,

44 Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. 45 Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two. 46

33And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.
34And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
35And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elias.
36And one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down.
37And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.
38And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.

those are in order mathew, then, mark, then Luke but in john he did not include the part about darkness and he skiped the part about the temple being torn in two and went on to the next day why is John so wiered? in his account he was worried with the fulfilling of the scriptures and besides, his account was put in last after you read the other 3 you would have heard of those 2 things 3 times
now as for the romans not recording them why would they record something embarassing to them?

Edit: i forgot about Judas now here's an explanation of that

So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Matthew 27:5-8


With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood. Acts 1:18-19

now in Mathew it say the guards bought a field but in acts it says Judas did but if the guards bought the field they would have bought it under Judas' name and therefore it would go into record that Judas bought it and when they threw the body headlong into the field his body would have burst open

 

[Ang]

I would just l;ike to end the off-topic bit now.

I would like to say that I don't have a problem with all the technology that science produces. I have no problem with chemistry, biology(ish), optics etc. The only bit of science which I do have a problem with is the big bang theory.

I would also like to say that, even though you argued your point well, you seem to have little understanding of religion, which is a bad thing when your debating it.

There. I am finished now. Over.

 

[Ryushikaze]

hmm i sort of see your point somewhat see your point but , to tackle the problem of the genealogies first, in Luke it says
Luke 3:23(New International Version)


23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli

and in Mathew it says

Matthew 1:16 (New International Version)

10and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

now if you look at those you would assume they were 2 different accounts but if you look closer in Luke it says Jesus, not Joseph, was the son of Heli meaning Heli was Mary's father

I'm aware of this apologetic, and it's pathetic. When I say Bob was the son of Mel, the son of Schlomo, I do not mean Schlomo was Mel's wife's dad.
You're getting confused by the 'so it was thought' in there, but this is an aside to say that they are not sure that Joseph is the father. If you take it out, it says 'He was the son of Joseph,
the son of Heli, etc'.
Mary is not mentioned at all in the genealogy, and it is especially unlikely in the time that the mother's lineage would be considered worth a mention.

Of course, if Joseph isn't the father, the genealogies are kind of pointless as it means Yeshua isn't actually of the house of David, and thus doesn't actually fulfill the prophecy that the savior would be of the house of david.

now on to Jesus' last words

Matthew 27:50 NIV wrote:
50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

Mark 15: 34-37 wrote:And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

35When some of those standing near heard this, they said, "Listen, he's calling Elijah."

36One man ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to take him down," he said.

37With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.​

Luke 23:46 NIV wrote:Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.​

John 19:30 NIV wrote:When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.​

now if you look at that you would assume that they were contradicting accounts but again, when you look closer, you see they do not contradict in John it says he bowed his head and gave up his spirit how did he give up his spirit?

Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."

that is how Jesus gave up his spirit I have no idea why John did not say how Jesus gave up his spirit but he did not

Funny that, yes. It's almost as if it hadn't occurred to him.

now onto the resurrection, this going to be a long post, so as to not make it too long i will say that they are pretty much the same way each one choosing which details to put in and if you read

1 Corinthians 15:1-8 (New International Version)

1 Corinthians 15

The Resurrection of Christ

1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

you can easily see how all of the accounts can be used as one account

Except one account says that he was immediately recognized, another says he was not. One account says he was touched and his feet cleaned by the women present, another says that no one had touched him. Different numbers of people initially 'see' him in the different version and they do different things. How is this not a contradiction?

now as for the earthquake and darkness, that occurs in 3 of the accounts
-snip-

those are in order mathew, then, mark, then Luke but in john he did not include the part about darkness and he skiped the part about the temple being torn in two and went on to the next day why is John so wiered? in his account he was worried with the fulfilling of the scriptures and besides, his account was put in last after you read the other 3 you would have heard of those 2 things 3 times
now as for the romans not recording them why would they record something embarassing to them?

Because fuck the roman's I'm talking about ANYONE. Not the romans, not any contemporaneous source, not any historians writing of this time, not even golden boy Josphus mentioned any of that, and he would have totally mentioned the temple being torn in two, and people all across the empire would have taken note of three hours of unexplained darkness.
You have these major events that everyone would have been unable not to take notice of, yet no one even gives them a second thought?

Edit: i forgot about Judas now here's an explanation of that

So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Matthew 27:5-8


With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood. Acts 1:18-19

now in Mathew it say the guards bought a field but in acts it says Judas did but if the guards bought the field they would have bought it under Judas' name and therefore it would go into record that Judas bought it and when they threw the body headlong into the field his body would have burst open

So, you're saying that the Bible is lying when it says that Judas bought the field, that he was thrown, and did not fall, and that his body was so immensely fragile that it would have burst open? Judas is described in Acts as the actor, who buys the field. Yet he throws the money away in Matthew. You are saying it was bought 'in his name', to get around this, but this does not make him the buyer of the field as he is in acts. It is a pathetic apologetic. It really is.

Of course, these are simply minor nitpicks, I can still rest my case on that the bible says there was a worldwide flood that wiped out all of human civilization at some point in the last three thousand years. Such an event never happened. Ergo, the bible is not historically accurate.
Not that it should be given credit without proving itself, of course. It does suffer the burden of proof to support itself, because despite certain claims to the contrary, religions do need to prove themselves.

 

[phantasmor]

hmm I'm not sure if you noticed but in both of the geologies David is mentioned meaning no matter what Jesus came from the house of David so you are wrong on that point AND Joseph was not Jesus' father so a genealogy tracing Joseph back to David would be pointless but a genealogy tracing marry back David would be very important.

edit: oh i made a mistake it was the VEIL of the temple being torn in two not the temple

i will comment on the other tings later as that post was WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too long and i think we should tackle these things one or two at a time

 

[Ryushikaze]

hmm I'm not sure if you noticed but in both of the geologies David is mentioned meaning no matter what Jesus came from the house of David so you are wrong on that point AND Joseph was not Jesus' father so a genealogy tracing Joseph back to David would be pointless but a genealogy tracing marry back David would be very important.

So then why bother with two Genealogies which both mention David, but neither of which mentions Mary?
As an aside, I'd like to point at that Jesus the wholly deific son of god and the immaculate birth (virgin had a slightly different meaning back then, but virgins were supposed to also be chaste as well, but they were not technically synonymous) were not a universally accepted idea even within the church until around the council of nicea. Until then, there was a schism over the exact details among various groups. There were those who considered him a traditional demigod, a human made a god by a form of deific elevation, that Joseph was imbued with the holy spirit, etc. etc. etc.
Early religious bickering is interesting to watch.

edit: oh i made a mistake it was the VEIL of the temple being torn in two not the temple

Again, something Josephus would have mentioned. He was very concerned with stuff like that. Again, this does not explain why not an outside record of Jesus, his ministries, or the events surrounding his death were ever recorded.
I mean, we still have records of a contemporaneous gladiatrix, and a completely different Jesus who was promoting an entirely different messianic religion, but none on the Jesus of Nazareth.

i will comment on the other tings later as that post was WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too long and i think we should tackle these things one or two at a time

Just so long as you remember that the onus is decidedly on you to front some proof for the veracity of the biblical record in the first place it even gets status as 'historically accurate', and that proving the one instance does not prove the whole.

 

[phantasmor]

first the genealogy in Luke it includes women many times in the genealogy a thing that was not traditionally done and(i think) points directly to line being Mary's

and on to the veil i think that the non-Christians did not record it because they did not want to and that it was embarrassing to them

as a side note i say two things first this veil was somewhere near 60 feet high and four inches thick. and the second thing is do you have these records of this "completely different Jesus who was promoting an entirely different messianic religion" i would like to see these records i was searching for them but i could not find them

also, a third thing that is related to the second, there are records in the bible of another Jesus

2 Corinthians 11:4 (NKJV)
4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it

 

[Ryushikaze]

first the genealogy in Luke it includes women many times in the genealogy a thing that was not traditionally done and(i think) points directly to line being Mary's

Which names are the women?

and on to the veil i think that the non-Christians did not record it because they did not want to and that it was embarrassing to them

And yet the recorded several other massive embarrassments in their history, so why not this one?

as a side note i say two things first this veil was somewhere near 60 feet high and four inches thick. and the second thing is do you have these records of this "completely different Jesus who was promoting an entirely different messianic religion" i would like to see these records i was searching for them but i could not find them

Oh, there were several of them. I'll have to look to see what his surname is, but I know he is mentioned in detail in Josephus' records, as well as in Roman arrest records fora number of offenses. I believe it's in the Testimonium Flavius, but that's from memory, so take that with a grain of salt.

also, a third thing that is related to the second, there are records in the bible of another Jesus

2 Corinthians 11:4 (NKJV)
4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it

I'm fairly certain that's supposed to be of people preaching that Jesus said something other than recorded by the gospels, but it's not impossible. As I said, there was a surfeit of them at the time, so it makes sense for the followers to want people not following the other so called messiahs of the time.
But the bible recording other Jesuses (Jesii? Jesaboo?) is not the same as an exterior source recording the existence of the biblical Jesus.

If you're willing to discuss it, an interesting subject is the problems with the supposed date of Jesus's birth and the issues that arise out of what happened and when they say it did.

 

[phantasmor]

first of all never mind what i said about the genealogy i found out that it was Mathew's genealogy that included women and that the theory of Luke's being Mary's like is also wrong so as of yet i cannot explain why the 2 are different because i cannot find any material from that time

the second thing is that it is pretty much the same as the first i can not find any material from that time that records what happened, if i could i would certainly read it and find out for myself weather or not the bible is accurate in fact you have gotten me thinking and i am forever looking for knowledge so if anyone has a way i could get some historical documents from that time it would be appreciated

as for the third thing i would like to talk about "the problems with the supposed date of Jesus' birth and the issues that arise out of what happened and when they say it did"

 

[Ryushikaze]

Fair enough. I'm still looking for the records of the other Jesuses. I'll look for the information as best I can. I'm away from the records I normally use so bear with me.

Anyways, on the dates, so, the two most accepted dates are Christmas, natch, and some time in June, in either 5 BC or the beginning of the AD calendar (which was made to try and match the first assumed date).

The problem with the birth date being on christmas is that it is stated in the account of his birth that the shepherds were in the field that evening. This makes no sense at all, because if it were that late in the year, the sheep would have been in kept in for the winter, and so there would have been no shepherds out with any flocks. That's why the alternate proposal is generally considered to be some night in june, when such shepherds would have been out, and in full force. Additionally, astronomers have determined that the only time a shooting star would have appeared during that decade would have been in the summer.

The other big problems are with the year he was supposedly born. Both the first year AD/CE and Five BC/BCE have issues in that with the first year... Herod was dead. He couldn't have issued any census at all that year, having died four years prior.
This is why the 5 BC/BE year was considered as a correction date instead. Other prior dates are also considered as the birth year as well. The problem comes in that Quirinius, whom it is stated was governor of Syria of the time, was not. He was not a govenor of Syria at any time during the reign of Herod, and the Census that he did order is reliably dated to 6 AD/CE. So, the two temporal markers used for Jesus's birth are on the order of ten years apart. It's a rather problematic conundrum for a literal take of the bible.

 

[phantasmor]

mind you i am using the bible to date the birth of Jesus but in Daniel 9 it says

25 Know therefore and understand,
That from the going forth of the command
To restore and build Jerusalem
Until Messiah the Prince,
There shall be seven weeks



now i have found that in the original text these "Weeks" are actually years because it uses the word for years


now when was Jerusalem rebuilt? i am not sure but Wikipedia says

The Herodian Kingdom and era (35 BCE - 96 CE)




Prutah of Agrippa I. Inscription in Greek, "of king Agrippa"
The Romans installed Herod as a Jewish client king under Roman rule around 19 BCE. As king of Judea, Herod rebuilt the Second Temple, upgraded the surrounding complex and expanded the minting of coins to many denominations. This rebuilding effort is considered the most important of the many improvements Herod made to the city. After Herod's death, the province of Judea and the city of Jerusalem came under direct Roman rule in 6 CE through Roman procurators; but Herod's descendants (in the order of Archelaus, Agrippa I and Agrippa II) remained kings of Judea until Agrippa II died in 96 CE, almost thirty years after the destruction of the Temple, and the Herodian and Flavian dynasty came to an end.

i am not going to do the math because i am reading more so you tell me. also if Wikipedia is wrong, which it probably is, feel free to correct it

oh yeah and marry Christmas eve and marry Christmas since i do not care when Jesus was born i will still celebrate his birth

 

[Ryushikaze]

mind you i am using the bible to date the birth of Jesus but in Daniel 9 it says

25 Know therefore and understand,
That from the going forth of the command
To restore and build Jerusalem
Until Messiah the Prince,
There shall be seven weeks

now i have found that in the original text these "Weeks" are actually years because it uses the word for years

now when was Jerusalem rebuilt? i am not sure but Wikipedia says

The Herodian Kingdom and era (35 BCE - 96 CE)

Prutah of Agrippa I. Inscription in Greek, "of king Agrippa"
The Romans installed Herod as a Jewish client king under Roman rule around 19 BCE. As king of Judea, Herod rebuilt the Second Temple, upgraded the surrounding complex and expanded the minting of coins to many denominations. This rebuilding effort is considered the most important of the many improvements Herod made to the city. After Herod's death, the province of Judea and the city of Jerusalem came under direct Roman rule in 6 CE through Roman procurators; but Herod's descendants (in the order of Archelaus, Agrippa I and Agrippa II) remained kings of Judea until Agrippa II died in 96 CE, almost thirty years after the destruction of the Temple, and the Herodian and Flavian dynasty came to an end.

i am not going to do the math because i am reading more so you tell me. also if Wikipedia is wrong, which it probably is, feel free to correct it

oh yeah and marry Christmas eve and marry Christmas since i do not care when Jesus was born i will still celebrate his birth

Well, Jerusalem is more than the temple, and the city was actually destroyed in the 5th century BCE, and rebuild in the 3rd century BCE, and then destroyed again in 70CE by the Romans, decades after the birth of Jesus is supposed to have taken place.

If we just refer to the rebuilding of the second temple, however, that occurred in 19BCE, so seven years from then, Herod would still have been client king, but then Quirinius still would not have been governor of Syrria, and there is no census in Judea in that decade.

 

[phantasmor]

actually if you read it does not say the temple was built in 19bce it says that Herod ruled in 19bce in fact the foundations of the second temple were laid about 535 B.C. and work was not started until 18 B.C. and was not completed until 65 A.D. and was destroyed in 70 A.D.

hmm thinking of it like that i do not see any way of nailing the birth of Jesus down that way i think i will do some more research and find out more then i will get back to you

edit: i found this: http://books.google.com/books?id=tWZW4a95vy0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Herod+the+Great and in this book it says that Quirinius was preconsul of Syria and some other place in 11 B.C. to 4 B.C. and therefore would have been the "governor" on that not i also read in there tht the word "governor" used to describe Quirinius in luke is the same word used for pilate later in luke and means procurator

another edit: i have found that herod did not stop his rebuilding with the new tower he also expanded on Jerusalem and rebuilt other things such as the west wall

 

[joeyfinalfantasygod]

Id say it is not only some things existed like the places and some other things but really this is just a tale fr the weak sothey can believe in something to die for and can let all their problems be solved by stuff said on this bullshit rule book.

 

[Ang]

Oh really? And what is your brilliant explanation for the world?

Effort etc

 

[Ryushikaze]

Oh really? And what is your brilliant explanation for the world?

Effort etc

Matter accretion by gravatic attraction is a well understood phenomenon, and is certainly more plausible than YHWH simply poofing it into existence one day.

BTW, Phantasmor, the rebuilding of the second temple began in 19BCE, so the 'call to rebuild' would have been in that year or before.

And Preconsul and Procurator are not the same role at all, nor is preconsul the same as a governor.

 

[phantasmor]

edit:after reading your post i saw that you made my argument for me about the dates because if it was that year I'm pretty sure proconsul is not a one year position and if it was the year before then all the better

as for the second thing i am not responsible for words being mistranslated also here are the definitions of some words

procuratorancient Rome) someone employed by the Roman Emperor to manage finance and taxes

proconsul:a provincial governor of consular rank in the Roman Republic and Roman Empire

consular:an official appointed by a government to reside in a foreign country to represent the commercial interests of citizens of the appointing country


now correct me if I'm wrong but by definition a proconsul would be both governor and procurator because as proconsul he would preside over commerce and therefore taxes

edit: just to remind you in Daniel 9 it says

25 Know therefore and understand,
That from the going forth of the command
To restore and build Jerusalem
Until Messiah the Prince,
There shall be seven weeks(meaning years if translated properly)

 

[Atma]

When you say 'the Bible' you are in fact critisizing 66 books, 39 of which are in the Old Testament. Of which it's a little vauge to assume a yes/no answer.

Some of the books though (eg. Genesis) are supposed to be taken metaphorically. Most Christians I know believe in evolution and not a literal Adam & Eve that gave birth to the 6 billion people we see today.
You also have to remember that the whole of the Bible isn't written in the same prose. Some of it is stories, some of it is historical, some of it are poems and songs. And to say is it all one thing is like saying are all of C.S. Lewis' books one particular attribute.

Some books in the Bible are too be taken historical and accurately, and are by many Scholars because they coinside with other non-biblical text:

Scientist Henry Morris in his book Many Infallible Proofs points out many Bible verses that assume facts about the physical universe - facts which weren't known until thousands of years later.



The literal meaning of the word 'circle' here when translated from Hebrew is circle or sphere. And this was 2,700 years before there was a common idea that the world wasn't flat. This is one of over 2,000 prophecies in the Bible. So to say is it reliable, yes it is.

The New Testament co-insides with many archaeology scholars as well. World famous archaeologist Nelson Gleuck comments:
Another world famous archaeologist John Romer, proud Christian, comments that whilst being in Jerusalem he was able to show from a archaeolgical point of view that the New Testament..Up until archaeology however, a lot of criticism assumed the Bible as myth because there was no evidence to prove it happened other than the Bible. Now there is evidence to support their claims.

The same goes for Pontius Pilate who ordered the execution of Jesus. Up until 1961 he was just a name in a book unknown to the world except for in the Bible. However in 1961 an archaeological exavation in Caesarea uncovere evidence of Pilate's existance and the fact he was Prefect of Judea. Quoted from archaeologist John Elder:


I would write more, maybe in the future. But I need to eat. x_______x
iluall~

^ This is the truth. Everything else in this topic is a big lie. Power be to GOD.

 

[Davey Gaga]

^ This is the truth. Everything else in this topic is a big lie. Power be to GOD.

We generally ask people to develop their thoughts in their posts more fully in the forum, especially in The Sleeping Forest. Please bear this in mind in the future.