There is no figure found in any historical records of this "Darius the Mede," nor of any of the events described in the following chapters, such as the famous edict that sentenced Daniel into the lion's den. Cyrus the Great defeated Belshazzar during the Persian invasion of Babylonia in 539 BC. How do we explain this?That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed. And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.
- Daniel 5:30-31
Interestingly, this was one of the 10,000 errors I had gathered back when I was an evangelical atheist. I even had a picture of an old Roman marker that listed when he was governor... years before when Luke says.
To make a long story short, I only had one marker. Another was unearthed that puts him as governor twice on the same marker with a time period in-between. The second marker lines up perfectly with Luke's account.
Would you provide the source for this? Judea was ruled under an enthnarch between 4 BC to 6 AD under the Roman controlled Herodian dynasty before Augustus replaced Archealus with Publius Quirnius. Even if there were another time that Publius Quirnius governed that region, it would no more support the time frame for Christ's birth. There would have to be a census between 4 BC to 6 AD under Publius Quirnius' government. It is at a cross roads because Herod and Quirnius did not rule the same region at the same time.
The Gospel of John describes a scene where John the Baptist saw Jesus coming toward him and he made the following statement:We find that in the synoptic gospels that after our Savior was baptized by John, "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry" (Luke 4:1-2). However, we find in the first chapter of the Gospel of John that the very "next day" after this event, Jesus calls and meets Andrew, Peter and possibly John (John 1:35-42), and the "next day" after that Jesus calls Philip and Nathanael (v. 43-51), and the "third day" they attended the wedding in Cana in Galilee (2:1-2), and after this they travelled to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples and stayed there for a few more days (v. 12). Here we have an apparent chronological problem.
Then there is an apparent chronological inconsistency of the narrative
I don't know if this has anything to do with it, but the wise men or men from the east did not find Jesus until he was 2 years old, and Herod ordered all the children under two years of age to be killed also, etc...Would you provide the source for this? Judea was ruled under an enthnarch between 4 BC to 6 AD under the Roman controlled Herodian dynasty before Augustus replaced Archealus with Publius Quirnius. Even if there were another time that Publius Quirnius governed that region, it would no more support the time frame for Christ's birth. There would have to be a census between 4 BC to 6 AD under Publius Quirnius' government. It is at a cross roads because Herod and Quirnius did not rule the same region at the same time.
By regarding the book as a fiction that is dressed in some accurate historical details. By regarding the book as inspired, but as neither history nor prophecy. It is a good book - that does not require it to be history or prophecy. The Jews have it as one of the Writings - not among the Prophets. Maybe Christians should accept it as Scripture, but not as a Prophetic book ?There is no figure found in any historical records of this "Darius the Mede," nor of any of the events described in the following chapters, such as the famous edict that sentenced Daniel into the lion's den. Cyrus the Great defeated Belshazzar during the Persian invasion of Babylonia in 539 BC. How do we explain this?
In light of my previous thread, I have been investigating more into apparent discrepancies that most non-believers have propagated in an attempt to disunify the whole fabric of the inspired, inerrant and infallible Scripture. In this research, I've found some unsettling passages that I haven't been able to reconcile. Some of you had great answers in my last thread for the confusion I had with the Savior's words. I believe the "sign of Jonah" was, as one poster replied, more or less a riddle that needed no actual, visible recognition to the adulterous generation that rejected what was already visibly evidence of his ministry and preaching. However, I want to continue asking in this forum about some more passages that have bothered me for quite some time. I have often gleaned through annotations of well-aged commentators and authors for answers, and have had discussions with my elders, but often was left in a state of dissatisfaction. If you are willing to avail me of this problem, it would be most edifying!
We find that in the synoptic gospels that after our Savior was baptized by John, "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry" (Luke 4:1-2). However, we find in the first chapter of the Gospel of John that the very "next day" after this event, Jesus calls and meets Andrew, Peter and possibly John (John 1:35-42), and the "next day" after that Jesus calls Philip and Nathanael (v. 43-51), and the "third day" they attended the wedding in Cana in Galilee (2:1-2), and after this they travelled to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples and stayed there for a few more days (v. 12). Here we have an apparent chronological problem.
Then there is an apparent chronological inconsistency of the narrative and historical events of Christ, which some of you may have heard before. In Matthew, "Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king" (Matthew 2:1), but according to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census of Quirinius, the governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). In extrabiblical records, more specifically the first-century historian Josephus, Publius Quirinius was appointed legate governor of Syria after Caesar Augustus disposed Archelaus, Herod's son and one of his successors, from that position in 6 AD. Publius Quirinius was assigned to carry out a census of the new province of Judea for tax purposes. This seems to be two entirely different periods in that timeline. Herod I died around 4 BC, that is at least a decade apart from Luke!
In the commentators I've read, as well as my elders have pointed out, that Quirinius may have been the governor of Syria before. Some even speculate that there were two different census carried out by Quirinius as governor of Syria by referencing Acts 5:37. However, there were only three "empire-wide" census (28 BC, 8 BC and 14 AD), and none of them happened when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Also, this particular census referenced by Luke is the same one that triggered a revolt by Judas of Galilee mentioned Acts 5:37, who encouraged Jews not to register and those that did had their houses burnt and their cattle stolen by his followers. So there was only one census, and the revolt happened during this one and the same census. Also, there was no such mandate for people to return to their ancestral place of origin for a census solely for taxes. Why would the Romans care about where your ancestors were from? Who would financially be able to travel to such great lengths? How do we resolve these apparent historical issues?
There are more apparent birth narratives problems I found, but I may spare that for another time. For example, when Joseph fled to Egypt being warned in a dream and then told to return, why did he want to return to Bethlehem but instead fled to his native home of Nazareth because of Archelaus (Matthew) if he was only there for the census (Luke)? Or how do we reconcile the the purification of Mary after the birth of Christ (Luke) with her fleeing with Joseph to Egypt (Matthew)?
In light of my previous thread, I have been investigating more into apparent discrepancies that most non-believers have propagated in an attempt to disunify the whole fabric of the inspired, inerrant and infallible Scripture. In this research, I've found some unsettling passages that I haven't been able to reconcile. Some of you had great answers in my last thread for the confusion I had with the Savior's words. I believe the "sign of Jonah" was, as one poster replied, more or less a riddle that needed no actual, visible recognition to the adulterous generation that rejected what was already visibly evidence of his ministry and preaching. However, I want to continue asking in this forum about some more passages that have bothered me for quite some time. I have often gleaned through annotations of well-aged commentators and authors for answers, and have had discussions with my elders, but often was left in a state of dissatisfaction. If you are willing to avail me of this problem, it would be most edifying!
We find that in the synoptic gospels that after our Savior was baptized by John, "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry" (Luke 4:1-2). However, we find in the first chapter of the Gospel of John that the very "next day" after this event, Jesus calls and meets Andrew, Peter and possibly John (John 1:35-42), and the "next day" after that Jesus calls Philip and Nathanael (v. 43-51), and the "third day" they attended the wedding in Cana in Galilee (2:1-2), and after this they travelled to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples and stayed there for a few more days (v. 12). Here we have an apparent chronological problem.
Then there is an apparent chronological inconsistency of the narrative and historical events of Christ, which some of you may have heard before. In Matthew, "Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king" (Matthew 2:1), but according to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census of Quirinius, the governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). In extrabiblical records, more specifically the first-century historian Josephus, Publius Quirinius was appointed legate governor of Syria after Caesar Augustus disposed Archelaus, Herod's son and one of his successors, from that position in 6 AD. Publius Quirinius was assigned to carry out a census of the new province of Judea for tax purposes. This seems to be two entirely different periods in that timeline. Herod I died around 4 BC, that is at least a decade apart from Luke!
In the commentators I've read, as well as my elders have pointed out, that Quirinius may have been the governor of Syria before. Some even speculate that there were two different census carried out by Quirinius as governor of Syria by referencing Acts 5:37. However, there were only three "empire-wide" census (28 BC, 8 BC and 14 AD), and none of them happened when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Also, this particular census referenced by Luke is the same one that triggered a revolt by Judas of Galilee mentioned Acts 5:37, who encouraged Jews not to register and those that did had their houses burnt and their cattle stolen by his followers. So there was only one census, and the revolt happened during this one and the same census. Also, there was no such mandate for people to return to their ancestral place of origin for a census solely for taxes. Why would the Romans care about where your ancestors were from? Who would financially be able to travel to such great lengths? How do we resolve these apparent historical issues?
There are more apparent birth narratives problems I found, but I may spare that for another time. For example, when Joseph fled to Egypt being warned in a dream and then told to return, why did he want to return to Bethlehem but instead fled to his native home of Nazareth because of Archelaus (Matthew) if he was only there for the census (Luke)? Or how do we reconcile the the purification of Mary after the birth of Christ (Luke) with her fleeing with Joseph to Egypt (Matthew)?
What if Mary went to the tomb twice? Once just as the earthquake subsided, and then after telling the apostles the body had been stolen?How do we reconcile these accounts?
Mary might not have been the source for the stone rolling and the guards falling. Maybe it was one of the guards, even, who told the Jewish leaders what happened, and Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea might have heard the story and related it to the apostles. The different accounts aren’t contradictory, just different.For example, did Mary Magdalene witness an angel descend from heaven and roll back the stone as Matthew states, or did she find it already rolled back upon arriving and thought the body of Jesus was stolen as John states?
Obviously, the resurrection event is described differently in each gospel account. That is a powerful testament to the reality of the resurrection event.What about the Muslim who says Allah has shown them that the Quran is perfect in every way? I feel that if men look too deep into Scripture, they may begin to have a crisis of their faith and so they blind themselves from seeing that path again. Why would the Spirit allow this? No one wants to address any of this head on, but they want to address the problems of other writings of other religions. I'm pressing it because it deserves a rebuttal, especially in a time that is trying against the inspiration God's word!
Not necessarily, it depends on the accuracy of the witnesses that the gospel account is using.However, when two authors reference a period specific to the reign of specific people, we can ascertain the time, can we not?
I would have thought that anyone of sound mind who was a young adult in 1991 would know the answer. I’m not from the USA, & I know every President, plus years in office, since FDR. Most of them are pretty memorable, which definitely helps. And all of them can be recognised from their photographs. If the 10 older people were in their 50s or 60s, and in good mental health, ISTM that they would all know the names of the Presidents of the last 30/40 years.Not necessarily, it depends on the accuracy of the witnesses that the gospel account is using.
We observe time very accurately in the twenty first century. Two thousand years ago time was not observed very accurately. We are also relying on observations supplied by different witnesses, that recall the details somewhat differently.
It is far to demanding of first century witnesses that they be perfectly accurate. When they recall information from an event that occurred two or even three decades before.
If I asked ten older people who was the president of the United States in 1991, how many of the ten would be correct?
The gospels are as accurate as any accounts could be possibly be within the first century. These insignificant variations in the four texts are most welcome. I demand that variation, I expect differences in the accounts, that is how I know it is the real deal.
I instinctively distrust any attempt at harmonisation that has no other basis than the need to harmonise (supposedly, but perhaps not really) discrepant texts. And that appears (“appears” being the significant word) to be what this is.What if Mary went to the tomb twice? Once just as the earthquake subsided, and then after telling the apostles the body had been stolen?
Mary might not have been the source for the stone rolling and the guards falling. Maybe it was one of the guards, even, who told the Jewish leaders what happened, and Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea might have heard the story and related it to the apostles. The different accounts aren’t contradictory, just different.
I said the president in 1991.I would have thought that anyone of sound mind who was a young adult in 1991 would know the answer. I’m not from the USA, & I know every President, plus years in office, since FDR. Most of them are pretty memorable, which definitely helps. And all of them can be recognised from their photographs. If the 10 older people were in their 50s or 60s, and in good mental health, ISTM that they would all know the names of the Presidents of the last 30/40 years.
George W. Bush was POTUS in 1991 - if that is the year you want.I said the president in 1991.
Anyone can recognize a famous face but as soon as you name a year, the wheels fall off.
It's the finer details that will vary from one person to another.
Witnesses are never 100% accurate.
A possible solution, or part-solution, is to ask “Why are these kings described as doing those things, to those people ?”. Maybe accurate history was not as important for the author(s) of Daniel, as it for many Christians today.There is no figure found in any historical records of this "Darius the Mede," nor of any of the events described in the following chapters, such as the famous edict that sentenced Daniel into the lion's den. Cyrus the Great defeated Belshazzar during the Persian invasion of Babylonia in 539 BC. How do we explain this?
I have two purposes in my attempts, which are mainly just speculation on my part at this time.I instinctively distrust any attempt at harmonisation that has no other basis than the need to harmonise (supposedly, but perhaps not really) discrepant texts. And that appears (“appears” being the significant word) to be what this is.
The problem with harmonisation is, that it takes different accounts, and finds a way to make them agree, and puts forward its harmonised reconstruction as what (probably) happened. The problem with that is, that the harmonised reconstruction is nowhere stated in the Bible. Something not stated in the Bible is (by implication) presented as though it were.
Harmonisers seem to be so keen to preserve the inerrancy of the Bible, that (irony of ironies) they sacrifice what the texts say, in order to preserve it. I don’t think that any lover of what the Bible says can be really satisfied with such a result.
In light of my previous thread, I have been investigating more into apparent discrepancies that most non-believers have propagated in an attempt to disunify the whole fabric of the inspired, inerrant and infallible Scripture. In this research, I've found some unsettling passages that I haven't been able to reconcile. Some of you had great answers in my last thread for the confusion I had with the Savior's words. I believe the "sign of Jonah" was, as one poster replied, more or less a riddle that needed no actual, visible recognition to the adulterous generation that rejected what was already visibly evidence of his ministry and preaching. However, I want to continue asking in this forum about some more passages that have bothered me for quite some time. I have often gleaned through annotations of well-aged commentators and authors for answers, and have had discussions with my elders, but often was left in a state of dissatisfaction. If you are willing to avail me of this problem, it would be most edifying!
We find that in the synoptic gospels that after our Savior was baptized by John, "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry" (Luke 4:1-2). However, we find in the first chapter of the Gospel of John that the very "next day" after this event, Jesus calls and meets Andrew, Peter and possibly John (John 1:35-42), and the "next day" after that Jesus calls Philip and Nathanael (v. 43-51), and the "third day" they attended the wedding in Cana in Galilee (2:1-2), and after this they travelled to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples and stayed there for a few more days (v. 12). Here we have an apparent chronological problem.
Then there is an apparent chronological inconsistency of the narrative and historical events of Christ, which some of you may have heard before. In Matthew, "Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king" (Matthew 2:1), but according to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census of Quirinius, the governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). In extrabiblical records, more specifically the first-century historian Josephus, Publius Quirinius was appointed legate governor of Syria after Caesar Augustus disposed Archelaus, Herod's son and one of his successors, from that position in 6 AD. Publius Quirinius was assigned to carry out a census of the new province of Judea for tax purposes. This seems to be two entirely different periods in that timeline. Herod I died around 4 BC, that is at least a decade apart from Luke!
In the commentators I've read, as well as my elders have pointed out, that Quirinius may have been the governor of Syria before. Some even speculate that there were two different census carried out by Quirinius as governor of Syria by referencing Acts 5:37. However, there were only three "empire-wide" census (28 BC, 8 BC and 14 AD), and none of them happened when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Also, this particular census referenced by Luke is the same one that triggered a revolt by Judas of Galilee mentioned Acts 5:37, who encouraged Jews not to register and those that did had their houses burnt and their cattle stolen by his followers. So there was only one census, and the revolt happened during this one and the same census. Also, there was no such mandate for people to return to their ancestral place of origin for a census solely for taxes. Why would the Romans care about where your ancestors were from? Who would financially be able to travel to such great lengths? How do we resolve these apparent historical issues?
There are more apparent birth narratives problems I found, but I may spare that for another time. For example, when Joseph fled to Egypt being warned in a dream and then told to return, why did he want to return to Bethlehem but instead fled to his native home of Nazareth because of Archelaus (Matthew) if he was only there for the census (Luke)? Or how do we reconcile the the purification of Mary after the birth of Christ (Luke) with her fleeing with Joseph to Egypt (Matthew)?