Bethlehem

[AV1611VET]

You completely ignored my attempt to bring the conversation back to the topic at hand, and also either can't or won't respond to the other points in my post.

Perhaps you don't understand my signature, Jade.

Would you like me to explain it to you?

 

[TLK Valentine]

One can only remain blind to the holes if one closes one's eyes and refuses to look at them because one is scared of what one might see, rather like someone covering their eyes in a horror movie.

Indeed -- fear of the unknown can often blind the "true believers" to the obvious.

 

[Jade Margery]

Perhaps you don't understand my signature, Jade.

Would you like me to explain it to you?

I understand it just fine. It's the religious equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying 'LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU SO YOU'RE WRONG LA LA LA'

When you can't support your position with evidence, logic, or knowledge, you can always retreat to blind faith and willful ignorance and pretend that means you win.

 

[AV1611VET]

I understand it just fine.

Then I'll take this: 57 ... with a grain of salt.

 

[dad]

You didn't read-- oh, right, of course you didn't.

The articles posted were void of proofs or substance. Silly doubts and conjecture.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The articles posted were void of proofs or substance. Silly doubts and conjecture.

Pretty impressive for you to make such a judgement without reading them.

 

[46AND2]

The articles posted were void of proofs or substance. Silly doubts and conjecture.

Whoever said anything about proof? The article did not claim to prove anything. it merely presented evidence which was discovered by archaeologists, and a possible explanation for that evidence, which can be further tested with more research in the future.

 

[HitchSlap]

It would mean scientists got it wrong again.

It seems to me that science got the year and month of Jesus' supposed birth right, when the bible got it wrong.

 

[Steve Petersen]

It seems to me that science got the year and month of Jesus' supposed birth right, when the bible got it wrong.

Umm, where exactly does the Bible give the year and month of Jesus' birth?

 

[AV1611VET]

It seems to me that science got the year and month of Jesus' supposed birth right, when the bible got it wrong.

And what year & month did the Bible say it was?

 

[AV1611VET]

Umm, where exactly does the Bible give the year and month of Jesus' birth?

Their zeal to show the Bible wrong sometimes causes them to make a technical mistake.

And then they wonder why I call them 'Internet scientists.'

 

[46AND2]

And what year & month did the Bible say it was?

Depends on which gospel you read.

Luke says Jesus was born during the census performed by Quirinius which happened in 6 AD, and Matthew says that Jesus was born while King Herod was in power, and he died in 4 BC.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Depends on which gospel you read.

Luke says Jesus was born during the census performed by Quirinius which happened in 6 AD, and Matthew says that Jesus was born while King Herod was in power, and he died in 4 BC.

(Cue blather about "embedded time" in 3...2...1...)

 

[AV1611VET]

Depends on which gospel you read.

Luke says Jesus was born during the census performed by Quirinius which happened in 6 AD, and Matthew says that Jesus was born while King Herod was in power, and he died in 4 BC.

Nice try.

 

[46AND2]

Nice try.

What do you mean? I'm pretty sure that is what hitchslap was referring to. I don't agree with his wording, but he is correct that the Bible could not get the birth account correct.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't agree with his wording, but he is correct that the Bible could not get the birth account correct.

Why? because scientists can't put the pieces together and say for sure who reigned when? so it's the Bible's fault?

 

[46AND2]

Why? because scientists can't put the pieces together and say for sure who reigned when? so it's the Bible's fault?

No AV, the problem is that they CAN put the pieces together and say who reigned when.

 

[AV1611VET]

No AV, the problem is that they CAN put the pieces together and say who reigned when.

Is that why they're off by four years?

 

[46AND2]

Is that why they're off by four years?

The ten year gap between Herod's death and Quirinius' governorship has nothing to do with the 4 years you are talking about.

 

[Metal Minister]

The ten year gap between Herod's death and Quirinius' governorship has nothing to do with the 4 years you are talking about.

http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con100.asp

The first point is the terminology Luke uses when writing about Quirinius' governorship over Syria. In stating that Quirinius controlled the Syrian area, Luke doesn't use the official political title of "Governor" ("legatus"), but the broader term "hegemon" which is a ruling officer or procurator. This means that Quirinius may not have been the official governor of Judea, but he was in charge of the census because he was a more capable and trusted servant of Rome than the more inept Saturninus.

Justin Martyr's Apology supports this view, writing that Quirinius was a "procurator", not a governor of the area of Judea. 6 As Gleason Archer writes, "In order to secure efficiency and dispatch, it may well have been that Augustus put Quirinius in charge of the census-enrollment in Syria between the close of Saturninus's administration and the beginning of Varus's term of service in 7 B.C. It was doubtless because of his competent handling of the 7 B.C. census that Augustus later put him in charge of the 7 A.D. census." 7 Archer also says that Roman history records Quirinius leading the effort to quell rebels in that area at exactly that time, so such a political arrangement is not a stretch.