Bible-Creation-Evolution (2)

[Nathan Poe]

On the census issue, it seems all we are dealing with is weak records in that time ans place. Possibly even a cover up. Satan would do his darnedest to sweep whatever he could get wicked men to sweep under the rug.

So it's Satan's fault? How original.

Here is one guy that seems to have little problem with that issue...

I must say, dad -- I am impressed. You've stopped blathering long enough to actually post an intelligent response to a posed question.

"In 1912,however, the discovery by W. M. Ramsey of a fragmentary inscription at Antioch of Pisidia arguably established Quirinius was in Syria on a previous occasion. (1) His role was more military to lead a campaign against the Homanadenses, a tribe in the Taurus Mountains. This is confirmed by Tacitus. This means that Quirinius would have established a seat of government in Syria, including Palestine, from the years 10 to 7 BCE. In this position he would have been responsible for the census mentioned by Luke.

Raymond Brown had this to say about Ramsay's speculations:

"The other inscription was found on a marble base in Antioch of Pisidia by W. M. Ramsay in 1912. The inscription is dedicated to G. Caristianus Fronto a colonist of Antioch who served “as prefect of P. Sulpicius Quirinius, the chief magistrate [duumvir], and as prefect of M. Servilius.” Quirinius is identified as a chief magistrate, while Servilius is not; but Ramsay argues that Quirinius and Servilius were of equal status, and indeed Quirinius was legate of Syria at the same time that Servilius was Iegate of Galatia during the Homonadensian war (before 6 B.C.). Obviously Ramsay’s theory goes considerably beyond what the inscription says."

Refresh my memory, dad -- what is it you say about basless assumptions concerning the past?

"If Quirinius served as governor of Syria twice, once in A.D. 6 and once earlier, the two possible time slots for the earlier governorship would be before M. Titius (and thus before 10 B.C.) or between Quintilius Varus and Gaius Caesar (and thus between 4 and 1 B.C.). Either possibility could be reconciled with the Lucan information. However, from what we know of the relatively well-documented career of Quirinius, it is unlikely that he had an earlier governorship at either of those periods. He served as consul in 12 B.C. (Tacitus Annals III 48). He was in Asia Minor sometime after 12 and before 6 B.C. leading the legions in the war against the Homonadenses. He was in the Near East, specifically in Syria, as an advisor of Gaius Caesar for several years before A.D. 4. But there is no mention of Quirinius having been legate in the nearly twenty years of his career from 12 B.C. to A.D. 6. Josephus, who describes several times the beginning of Quirinius’ legateship in A.D. 6, gives no hint that Quirinius had served previously in that capacity."

Scholars have debated about the historicity of this first census since there is no record of it in the Roman archives.

That's a pretty sticky issue right there -- regardless of time, place, or culture, the most reliable records are tax records.

Their chief argument is that Augustus would not have imposed a census for the purpose of taxation in the kingdom of a client king like Herod. Herod had his own tax collectors and paid tribute to Rome from the proceeds. They further pose that the census in 6 CE was imposed because Herod's nutty son Archelaus had been deposed and Judea was placed under direct Roman rule. These are good arguments.

Glad to see we agree.

As a layman, I am forced to go back to Luke and ask why he would record an event that never took place. Luke was well educated with diversified talents. He seems careful in his historicity and, although very young at the time, may very well have met Jesus. He knew and interviewed those who were closest to Jesus. Some scholars think that the story of the first census and the birth in Bethlehem is theologoumenon. This is a term scholars use for that which expresses an event or notion in language what may not be factual but supports, enhances, or is related to a matter of faith. In other words, a "white lie." I don't buy it in this case. There is no advantage to matters of faith in the invention of a census of 6 BCE.

Ah, but there is an advantage -- it's a literary device to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, which fulfills a Messianic prophecy.

Some scholars argue that the early census was invented to support a mythological birth in Bethlehem in support of Messianic prophecy. We'll cover the Bethlehem issue below. As for the early census, I am inclined to believe Luke and Tertullian (even though Tertullian isn't one of my favorite characters). I can think of a number of reasons based on the history of the time. Lack of records is not evidence for or against an historical event. Records are lost and destroyed, particularly those that are two millennia old.

But we already have records of the Roman census in 28 BC, another in 8 BC, and another one in AD 13-14. Even if there is a lost census of 6 BC, what would have been the point?

I believe that the prudent and prudish Augustus, scandalized by Herod's outrageous reputation and increasing madness, began the movement toward making Judea a prefecture in 8 BCE and part of that preparation was a registration. "

HISTORY AND THE NEW TESTAMENT

Funny, you've never cared for speculation about the past when it disagrees with you -- and if Augustus had instuted a census as a reaction to Herod's outrageous behavior, why tax the entire empire? A decree limiting itself only to Judea would've sufficed.

Why did Augustus wait until AD 6 to officially place Judea under Roman authority? 14 years is a long time to hold a grudge?

How does any of this affect Galilee, which was still not subject to the census?

 

[Tiberius]

That depends how you define 'evolution'? You talking about slow little present evoving, or also imagined similar evolving for unproven ages, that started from nothing?

It is normal, by the way, for the bible to be looked at in debates where it is involved. Kind of a cross examination of the witness...

First of all, you have a completely false idea about biological evolution if you think it started from nothing.

Secondly, I have already posted several times how some passages in the Bible can be interpreted as being compatible with evolution. Seems to me the typical creationist response is little more than "But I don't want to believe in evolution, so I'll say that any interpretation of the Bible that is compatible with evolution must be false."

 

[dad]

First of all, you have a completely false idea about biological evolution if you think it started from nothing.

I don't think that. Science teaches that, basically...or that some comet wafted it in, etc. No wiggling.

Secondly, I have already posted several times how some passages in the Bible can be interpreted as being compatible with evolution.

Then you posted nonsense. Glad I missed it.

Seems to me the typical creationist response is little more than "But I don't want to believe in evolution, so I'll say that any interpretation of the Bible that is compatible with evolution must be false."

I do believe in evolution, as a created trait no less. That blows your claim out of the water.

 

[Tiberius]

I don't think that. Science teaches that, basically...or that some comet wafted it in, etc. No wiggling.

Your ideas about what science teaches are wrong.

Then you posted nonsense. Glad I missed it.

Correction, I posted something that you think is nonsense. There are many other people who do not share your views.

I do believe in evolution, as a created trait no less. That blows your claim out of the water.

What in the word are you talking about? Your opinion does not blow anything out of the water. I said "TYPICAL CREATIONIST". When did I refer to you? Stop taking everything so personally. Not everything revolves around you, y'know.

 

[dad]

So it's Satan's fault? How original.

I do not need to be original. God leaked the info.

I must say, dad -- I am impressed. You've stopped blathering long enough to actually post an intelligent response to a posed question.

Thanks.

Raymond Brown had this to say about Ramsay's speculations:

"The other inscription was found on a marble base in Antioch of Pisidia by W. M. Ramsay in 1912. The inscription is dedicated to G. Caristianus Fronto a colonist of Antioch who served “as prefect of P. Sulpicius Quirinius, the chief magistrate [duumvir], and as prefect of M. Servilius.” Quirinius is identified as a chief magistrate, while Servilius is not; but Ramsay argues that Quirinius and Servilius were of equal status, and indeed Quirinius was legate of Syria at the same time that Servilius was Iegate of Galatia during the Homonadensian war (before 6 B.C.). Obviously Ramsay’s theory goes considerably beyond what the inscription says."

So we can take one of a few renderings of what happened. You chose to take one that insults God. Whoopee do.

Refresh my memory, dad -- what is it you say about basless assumptions concerning the past?

Probably said a lot of things. What is baseless here is you picking one version of history that is in the shadows, and trying to hold it up as gospel over a more fair minded rendering of the unknown past.

"If Quirinius served as governor of Syria twice, once in A.D. 6 and once earlier, the two possible time slots for the earlier governorship would be before M. Titius (and thus before 10 B.C.) or between Quintilius Varus and Gaius Caesar (and thus between 4 and 1 B.C.). Either possibility could be reconciled with the Lucan information. However, from what we know of the relatively well-documented career of Quirinius, it is unlikely that he had an earlier governorship at either of those periods. He served as consul in 12 B.C. (Tacitus Annals III 48). He was in Asia Minor sometime after 12 and before 6 B.C. leading the legions in the war against the Homonadenses. He was in the Near East, specifically in Syria, as an advisor of Gaius Caesar for several years before A.D. 4. But there is no mention of Quirinius having been legate in the nearly twenty years of his career from 12 B.C. to A.D. 6. Josephus, who describes several times the beginning of Quirinius’ legateship in A.D. 6, gives no hint that Quirinius had served previously in that capacity."

Josephus did not know all things. God does.

That's a pretty sticky issue right there -- regardless of time, place, or culture, the most reliable records are tax records.

Yes. Sticky. If some guy was trying to register folks, but wasn't all that successful (in that it was only his first attempt) it need not end up in tax records. Need it?

Glad to see we agree.

Well, it is more like you agree with some part of the article. Funny thing about taxes, and money, and weird sons, and rulers that aren't quite yet rulers, and etc etc....the money they clooect, or stats they take, might not make it to the official records all the time..

Ah, but there is an advantage -- it's a literary device to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, which fulfills a Messianic prophecy.

It comes with the territory.

But we already have records of the Roman census in 28 BC, another in 8 BC, and another one in AD 13-14. Even if there is a lost census of 6 BC, what would have been the point?

Well, the point is, that this particular census was more important in God's eyes. The rest of them are trivia in comparison.

Funny, you've never cared for speculation about the past when it disagrees with you -- and if Augustus had instuted a census as a reaction to Herod's outrageous behavior, why tax the entire empire? A decree limiting itself only to Judea would've sufficed.

It is only in Judea we are concerned about. That is the world that mattered.

Why did Augustus wait until AD 6 to officially place Judea under Roman authority? 14 years is a long time to hold a grudge?

Doesn't matter. History is what it is.

How does any of this affect Galilee, which was still not subject to the census?

Source?

 

[dad]

Your ideas about what science teaches are wrong.

Example...????? If you dare!

Correction, I posted something that you think is nonsense. There are many other people who do not share your views.

Well, since you are too afraid to post it here...who cares!!??

What in the word are you talking about? Your opinion does not blow anything out of the water. I said "TYPICAL CREATIONIST". When did I refer to you? Stop taking everything so personally. Not everything revolves around you, y'know.

That does not address the issue. Evolution is a created trait.

 

[Tiberius]

Example...????? If you dare!

An example of you posting something that you claim science says but does not say? Sure. When you said that life came from nothing. Science does not say that, and no reputable scientist will claim it. You wanna prove me wrong? Show me where a reputable scientist makes such a claim.

Well, since you are too afraid to post it here...who cares!!??

I did post it in this thread. Go do your homework.

That does not address the issue. Evolution is a created trait.

No, you claim evolution is a created trait. You wanna provide some testable evidence for that?

 

[AV1611VET]

The scriptures existed already, and just needed to come together.

Good point --

I'd say they were already together; it was just a matter of God separating the Wheat from the chaff.

 

[Nathan Poe]

So we can take one of a few renderings of what happened. You chose to take one that insults God. Whoopee do.

Nope -- I take the one that you think insults you -- but since I've yet to meet a fundie who can separate their own interests from God's, the mistake is understadnable.

Probably said a lot of things. What is baseless here is you picking one version of history that is in the shadows, and trying to hold it up as gospel over a more fair minded rendering of the unknown past.

Kind of like what you were just doing with Ramsay's speculations?

Josephus did not know all things. God does.

And you know even less that Josephus -- far less.

Yes. Sticky. If some guy was trying to register folks, but wasn't all that successful (in that it was only his first attempt) it need not end up in tax records. Need it?

So the census was a failure? Wow, Joseph really wasted that time on his trek, didn't he?

Of course, this is all baseless speculation on your part, so I'll just ignore it -- you're slipping back into full-on blather mode.

Well, it is more like you agree with some part of the article. Funny thing about taxes, and money, and weird sons, and rulers that aren't quite yet rulers, and etc etc....the money they clooect, or stats they take, might not make it to the official records all the time..

Even more baseless speculation on your part.

It comes with the territory.

Indeed -- literary devices in literature.

Well, the point is, that this particular census was more important in God's eyes. The rest of them are trivia in comparison.

Even more baseless speculation on your part -- you're getting really sad at this, dad.

It is only in Judea we are concerned about. That is the world that mattered.

Only to you; not to Augustus, it would seem -- he "taxed the world."

Doesn't matter. History is what it is.

And not what you desperately need it to be in order to elevate yourself -- do try to remember that; we all grow weary of vainly trying to remind you.

Source?

Roman and Jewish history -- look it up, dad, before you blather on.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Good point --

I'd say they were already together; it was just a matter of God separating the wheat from the Chaff.

The rest of us count the likes of you and dad as the chaff.

Now run along, AV -- serious Biblical discussions are taking place.

 

[TheReasoner]

Good point --

I'd say they were already together; it was just a matter of God separating the wheat from the Chaff.

Interesting how you capitalize "chaff" and not "wheat".
As Poe said we do regard your position as chaff.

 

[AV1611VET]

Interesting how you capitalize "chaff" and not "wheat".

Fixed -- thanks for calling that to my attention!

 

[Nathan Poe]

Interesting how you capitalize "chaff" and not "wheat".
As Poe said we do regard your position as chaff.

Not to say that positions such as AV's and dad's are completely worthless -- they do an excellent job of illustrating, by example, the perils of magical thinking.

By "magical thinking," I mean the practice of treating past events under the assumption that the supernatural, divine, miraculous, etc., were common, everyday occurances.


In the real world, it's a lot easier to prove that something didn't happen than show that it did. Much scientific inquiry, for example, works with a null hypothesis -- rather than prove that something happened, one must disprove its opposite.

As Sherlock Holmes famously quipped, "once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

The main problem is that magical thinking cannot be used to eliminate anything, because under magical thinking, absolutely nothing is impossible. Since it cannot be used to eliminate falsehoods, its only purpose is to defend predetermined "truths" in the light of potentially falsifying evidence.

In this case, the "truth" has already been decided upon dogmatically by the magical thinker, and rather than surrender or even alter their pet idea, they will concoct whatever is necessary on the spot, and attribute it to whatever higher power they need to justify themselves.

Consider: two children playing cops-and-robbers:

A: "Bang! Bang! I got you!"
B: "Nuh-uh! I'm wearing a bulletproof vest!"
A: "Oh, yeah? Well, I'm using armor-piercing bullets!"
B: "Oh, yeah? Well, I've got a force field that stops them!"
A: "There's no such thing!"
B: "Yes there is! I'm a brilliant scientist and invented it back at my lab!"
A: "You're a cheater!"
B: "I know you are, but what am I?"
A: "Ah, forget this; I'm going home to play Nintendo."
*A walks away*
B: "I win!"

Anyone who has debated magical thinkers on these boards should find this analogy painfully familiar.

Magical thinking doesn't help anybody accomplish anything -- eliminating it does.

 

[rjc34]

Good point --

I'd say they were already together; it was just a matter of God separating the Wheat from the chaff.

So they were 'divinely inspired' when they picked which books and gospels to put in the bible?

It's a bit fishy that all the stuff they left out conveniently didn't jive with what they had been telling people all these years...

 

[Nathan Poe]

So they were 'divinely inspired' when they picked which books and gospels to put in the bible?

It's a bit fishy that all the stuff they left out conveniently didn't jive with what they had been telling people all these years...

And wasn't the selection process done by vote? Did God inspire some people on some books and other people on the rest?

Of course he did -- magical thinking!

 

[AV1611VET]

So they were 'divinely inspired' when they picked which books and gospels to put in the bible?

It's a bit fishy that all the stuff they left out conveniently didn't jive with what they had been telling people all these years...

175

 

[dad]

Nope -- I take the one that you think insults you -- but since I've yet to meet a fundie who can separate their own interests from God's, the mistake is understadnable.

So when ignorant, you admit choosing an option that opposes the bible. OK.

And you know even less that Josephus -- far less.

In some areas I know more. Far more!

So the census was a failure? Wow, Joseph really wasted that time on his trek, didn't he?

No. Jesus was born where God knew He would be born, and told us long long before this. That reason is important.

Only to you; not to Augustus, it would seem -- he "taxed the world."

Well, I wonder what that really means? You know these proud pip squeak tin pot rulers! People used to bow down, and say stuff like 'o king live forever..' And when they made some silly little decree, they would maybe say that 'all the world' must cowtow. Maybe the intent was to start showing that he ruled 'all the worl' and so the guy would start by stealing money from the folks in the part of the world he really meant.. Etc etc. Did Auggie tax China? Looks like his bark was worse than his bite.

 

[dad]

An example of you posting something that you claim science says but does not say? Sure. When you said that life came from nothing. Science does not say that, and no reputable scientist will claim it. You wanna prove me wrong? Show me where a reputable scientist makes such a claim.

Tell us where you think it did come from then? Where did the first imaginary life form come from?

No, you claim evolution is a created trait. You wanna provide some testable evidence for that?

Science cannot test Eden. They cannot test Adam, or the pre flood laws on the world. There are examples of life that changes fast in the bible, so that we can deduce that fast changes are a part of the true nature..i.e. created nature as well. Lions will eat grass in the time right after Christ returns. It does not say He recreates all life! That means they change. If they change fast, that means our laws will not be here. Elementary really.

 

[rjc34]

175

You analogies always seem painfully inadequate. It'd be like separating all the legal tender of another country from which you have no idea what bills they make, and they all say they're legal tender.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You analogies always seem painfully inadequate. It'd be like separating all the legal tender of another country from which you have no idea what bills they make, and they all say they're legal tender.

Not to mention that he seems to think there's some kind of boundary in place that prevents the government from printing up $3 or $4 bills as legal tender.

Apparently, folks like AV et al. Consider God as limited and predictable as their own governments.

Magical Thinking often (I'm tempted to say only, but I'll hold off) complements religious narcissism. Such and such must be so because I say it is, and I'll invoke and manufacture as many miracles as need be to keep it so.