Contradictions in the Bible

[JAL]

Your insistence that the burden of Proof that the Bible is "inspired" (since it says so) on me and your refusal to accept such a burden regarding OTHER books that claim to be "inspired," specifically the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon and Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures is noted.

Any port in a storm, JAL.......

Wait a minute. It sounds like you've been misunderstanding me all along. This is NOT what I believe. Special revelation told me the Bible was inspired BEFORE I read it! It's not the Bible that tells me the Bible is inspired!

 

[JAL]

Fine. Josephus claims that when Quirinius became Governor in Syria in 6 A.D. he did a census. (As was Common when people became Governors on a 12 or 14 year cycle for tax purposes.)

Please provide ANY evidence there was ANY census in 4 B.C. or prior when Herod the Great was king. Can't? Because there isn't any!

From Hoener's article cited earlier:

Census in Augustus’ reign. There is sufficient evidence of a census being taken periodically under the Republic and by Augustus in 28 B.C. and on subsequent occasions. In Gaul, where there was resistance, censuses were conducted in 27 and 12 B.C. and in Cyrene in 7 B.C.16 In Egypt there were censuses taken in fourteen year intervals beginning with 9 B.C.17 Luke’s statement: “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world was to be taxed” has been challenged by those who claim that there never was a single census of the entire Roman Empire. However, is this what Luke meant? Probably not. What is meant is that censuses were taken at different times in different provinces—Augustus being the first one in history to order a census or tax assessment of the whole provincial empire.18 This is further substantiated by the fact that Luke uses the present tense indicating that Augustus ordered censuses to be taken regularly rather than only one time.19 Thus there was an order of a general census in the time of Augustus.


16 16. G. H. Stevenson, “The Imperial Administration,” The Cambridge Ancient History, ed. by S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock, and M. P. Charlesworth (Cambridge, 1934), X, 192–93.


17 17. Cf. W. M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discoveries on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (4th ed.; London, 1920), pp. 255-74.


18 18. A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford, 1963), p. 168.


19 19. W. M. Ramsey, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? (London, 1898), pp. 123-24.

 

[JAL]

Sandwich, I re-read Luke 2. You seem to assume that Luke arranges all his material chronologically and never topically. This is usually correct, but I think it's really pushing it at the verse of contention:

"And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel" (LK 1:80). Your conclusion that Luke has John all grown up before Jesus was born makes Luke look like an idiot. Ok, if you are going to be so strict in your reading of Luke, why not be equally strict just a few verses earlier where Elizabeth says to Mary, "Blessed are thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" (Lk 1:42). This verse would suggest that Mary was already pregnant, and thus pregnant BEFORE John the Baptist grew up. You don't want this conclusion, so to avoid it you will have to say Elizabeth's statement is NOT chronological. But to admit this is to admit that Luke does NOT always arrange his material chronologically. Thus your theory that Luke has John all grown up before Jesus is born loses its foundation.

 

[Sandwich]

From Hoener's article cited earlier:....(and so on)

Right. A census in Judea, my friend in Judea. We KNOW about all the other censuses (censi?) But Judea came completely under Roman control....

Wait. I am done giving out facts. You find them on your own. Please provide evidence as to any census done in Judea for the Romans under Herod the Great's reign.

Special revelation told me the Bible was inspired BEFORE I read it! It's not the Bible that tells me the Bible is inspired!

Arrggg. You got me. My curiousity is aroused.

According to my Protestant, Baptist, Calvinistic upbringing, "General" revelation is nature (creation) around us. "Special" revelation is what was specifically given to humanity by God, i.e. the Bible. Specifically the canon. You, my friend, obviously have a differing view of "special" revelation. (Catholic?)

You knew the Bible was inspired Before you read it? How? (I know this is terribly off-topic, but I doubt many are following this thread at this point.)

 

[Sandwich]

...why not be equally strict just a few verses earlier where Elizabeth says to Mary, "Blessed are thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" ...(Lk 1:42).

Sorry, all I have is the NIV. Luke 1:42: In a loud voice she [Elizabeth] exclaimed: "Blesssed are you [Mary] among women and blessed is the child you will bear."

Nothing here says she was pregnant. You are right, JAL, I just read the passages as commonly written. I have lost my "christian" ability to change time, space and logic to say verse 1 is AFTER verse 2, but BEFORE verse 3, but the same word means a completely different thing in verse 4 in which I have disciples putting coats on a donkey for a saddle that won't be used for Jesus to enter a city that doesn't exist for an army that can't be demonstrated archeologically, so that God and Satan can work together to hold a census that must have been held by mis-translation (by EVERYBODY) "before" rather than "while" for a.........

I am done. Good night. Thank you, JAL for confirming may atheism as to the Christian God of the Bible. Again, if you are willing to accept these, errr... whatever you want to call them, fine.

I can't.

 

[JAL]

Oookkkaaayy. Where is the evidence for this "other 'Dan'?"

More importantly, four words: Look at a map.

I don't have any evidence for it. Barnes' Notes on Deut 34:1 says the same thing as K&D:
This can hardly be the Dan (Dan-Laish) of Jdg_18:27 ff, which was not in Gilead. It is probably a town of this name which stood in the north of Peraea; perhaps the same as Dan-jaan, 2Sa_24:6; and the Dan of Gen_14:14.

Both commentators regard it as undiscovered as yet. So I can't prove it existed. Has every town of such age been aracheologically verified?

 

[JAL]

Sorry, all I have is the NIV. Luke 1:42: In a loud voice she [Elizabeth] exclaimed: "Blesssed are you [Mary] among women and blessed is the child you will bear."

The Greek words for "fruit" and "womb" appear in this verse, regardless of the NIV translation omitting them. Explain that please.

 

[JAL]

I just looked at the Greek Majority Text. The verb "will bear" is not present there, apparently. Elizabeth said to Mary, "Blessed is the fruit of thy womb." That indicates pregnancy.

 

[MQTA]

...
You knew the Bible was inspired Before you read it? How? (I know this is terribly off-topic, but I doubt many are following this thread at this point.)

I'm still reading your ping pong with fascination.

 

[JAL]

I read two other articles on this census problem. Christian scholars disagree as to whether the Greek text supports the chronologically perfect solution that there were two censuses, one by Herod at Jesus’ birth, and a second one by Quirinus 12 years later. Four things support it. First, Luke is well aware that both John and Jesus were born under King Herod (Lk 1:5, 42) since he has Mary pregnant in that period (Lk 1:42). Second, Luke has Mary traveling from Gallilee to Judea for this census, which suggests that ONE ruler controlled all these areas (and apparently only Herod did so – see Wayne Brindle, The Census and Quirinius: Luke 2:2,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol 27 (1984), pp. 43-52). Third, Luke uses the Greek word protos in SOME sense whether “first” or “before” or “former” or “earlier” – but note that ALL possible translations signify TWO or more censuses in total. Fourth, Luke’s statement at Acts 5:37 betrays detailed knowledge of the Quirinus-census.

Let’s assume that the Greek text does not favor the solution. The weight of the evidence nonetheless indicates that Luke’s error here is at worst a misspelling of protos (for instance proton would probably be more favorable) or the omission of a Greek word or two. In other words, had Luke written this line correctly, the Greek would unmistakably speak of this census as being “the census before the census of Quirinus, being Governor of Syria.” This looks like a typo rather than a chronological error, which is perfectly acceptable in my opinion. (In fact I am open to typographical, chronological, geographical, and numerical errors, but not theological errors).

You want evidence of an earlier census? I gave some sources in the last post. Here is another quote, from the article just cited above:
Censuses were common in the Roman empire. A census of Roman citizens was held periodically under the republic and was conducted by Augustus in 28 B.C. and later.49 According to Sherwin-White, “The census was taken in the three Gauls in 27 B.C. (Dio, 53.22.15, Livy, Per. 134), in 12 B.C. (Livy, Per. 138, ILS, 212, ii. 36), and in A.D. 14-16 (Tac. Ann. i. 31, 33, ii. 6).”50 Census enrollments were made in Egypt every fourteen years. Evidence has been found of enrollments from A.D. 34 to A.D. 230.51 According to Ramsay, “Augustus was, in all probability, the originator of this system in Egypt.”52
49 49. Finegan, Handbook 236.
50 50. Sherwin-White, Roman Society 169 n. 1.
51 51. W. M. Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ? (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1898) 132-136.
52 52. Ibid., p. 137.
You do not believe that such a census took place in Judea. The writer is not arguing that the whole Roman world was censused in Judea. He is saying that Herod conducted the census of the Jews tribally, which entailed Joseph and Mary going to Bethlehem due to their Davidic lineage, And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David(Luke 2:4).
Another comment, Sandwich, on the colt problem (Mat 21). You need to back up your assumption that the Hebrew prophecy speaks unambiguously of only a colt, rather than both a donkey and a colt. There seems to be some scholarly disagreement about this. I am sticking with my original suspicion that Jesus, whose actions were sufficiently bizarre to rub spittle-mud in a blind man’s eyes, here rides two beasts (even though Mark’s version mentions only 1 of them). At every turn God seems to break out of the nice and tidy little boxes that we squeeze Him into, just to burst our bubble. This was the same God who had Isaiah running around butt-naked for three years, and had Namaan the Syrian dunking 7 times in a pool of water, to his own astonishment, in order to be healed! God, said Paul, has opted for foolish things to shame the wise, and for weak things to shame the strong.

 

[JAL]

According to my Protestant, Baptist, Calvinistic upbringing, "General" revelation is nature (creation) around us. "Special" revelation is what was specifically given to humanity by God, i.e. the Bible. Specifically the canon. You, my friend, obviously have a differing view of "special" revelation. (Catholic?)

You knew the Bible was inspired Before you read it? How? (I know this is terribly off-topic, but I doubt many are following this thread at this point.)

I'm sorry. I didn't see this post of yours. You're correct. Special revelation is often used in this sense. But it is also used in the sense of direct revelation. Thanks for pointing that out. For the sake of clarity, I will stick to the term "direct revelation" from now on. Does that clarify where I stand? (Direct revelation means hearing God's voice).

God's obligation is to reward those who seek Him (Heb 11). Hence anyone who tries to come to know the God-of-conscience will, by so doing, move God to reveal Himself in a more authentic sense. This is direct revelation. The biblical evidence suggests that people are unlikely to seek the God-of-conscience without assistance (softening of the heart) provided by the Holy Spirit. This does not prove there is no free will (contra Calvin), but it does suggest that the wooings of the Spirit may be the requisite for free will.

As I said, it makes no sense to preach the gospel in hope of iimmediate conversoin unless the Spirit persuades the listeners, by direct revelation, that Jesus is Lord. I say this because the gospel messsage is not simply asking people to accept the God-of-conscience. It is asking them to accept the HISTORIC Jesus as well, and there is no way a person could know for sure that Jesus is God without direct revelation (as Calvin taught). However, anyone who seeks the God-of-conscience will hear God (even infants, said Calvin), who IS the historic Jesus, and who will confirm this to the heart when the historic Jesus is preached. Thus it may be assumed that anyone who rejects the historic Jesus does not know the true God, in Protestant opinion.