Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Because we don't use the year 0.Why 1 AD?
Because we don't use the year 0.
And yes, A.D. means after His death, but again, science has this all tied up in a knot, as usual.
Coincidental? No. They kept good, dated records of their leadership (but that isn't all we have; dated coins and statues are also pretty convenient). It would be coincidental if their records were spotty except where it disagrees with the Bible, but that isn't the case.
As for why they didn't include something as important as the resurrection in their records, well, there are several possibilities:
1. It didn't happen the way the Bible states it did
2. It was intentionally left out of records due to a desire to suppress a religion they didn't believe in
3. It was recorded, and since lost, due to various reasons (anti-Christians destroying evidence, destroyed naturally before proliferation due to fire, etc.)
4. It just wasn't observed by, or informed to the historical writers whose writing has survived
I'm sure people can think of plenty of other explanations. It's one of the reasons for the statement "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Jesus was born in the year AD 1.
This 4 BC junk can take a hike.
It's really 2020 -- but of course, scientists had to get their fingers in it and now everything's messed up.
The explanation you miss out is that the Bible records accurate history of the resurrected Jesus who was seen, touched and had conversations with people. The historical records include the eyewitness testimony of those who met with Jesus after his resurrection.
However, regarding the Bible as reliable history would punch holes in your alternate theories.
Oz
The explanation you miss out is that the Bible records accurate history of the resurrected Jesus who was seen, touched and had conversations with people. The historical records include the eyewitness testimony of those who met with Jesus after his resurrection.
However, regarding the Bible as reliable history would punch holes in your alternate theories.
Oz
I don't think you properly read my "alternate theories." Nothing you said is inconsistent with numbers 2-4.
As for why they didn't include something as important as the resurrection in their records, well, there are several possibilities:
1. It didn't happen the way the Bible states it did
2. It was intentionally left out of records due to a desire to suppress a religion they didn't believe in
3. It was recorded, and since lost, due to various reasons (anti-Christians destroying evidence, destroyed naturally before proliferation due to fire, etc.)
4. It just wasn't observed by, or informed to the historical writers whose writing has survived
Oh, and you don't have any eyewitness testimony. You have second hand claims of eyewitness testimony. We don't hear from any of the witnesses at all.
Knock yourself outStart with your favorite, and I'll explain.
Most are easy, some may require me to research them.
Start with your most difficult "contradiction."
Sure there are. The first chapter directly contradicts the second chapter.There are not contradictions in Genesis!!
Oh, and you don't have any eyewitness testimony. You have second hand claims of eyewitness testimony. We don't hear from any of the witnesses at all.
Um, we have eyewitness accounts of both those events. Maybe try a different analogy?As a parallel: What eyewitness testimony do I, an Aussie, have of the twin towers' disaster on September 11, 2001?
What eyewitness account is available to you and me that Captain James Cook and his crew reached Australia in the Endeavour in 1770?
The Endeavour
Sure there are. The first chapter directly contradicts the second chapter.
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
Um, we have eyewitness accounts of both those events. Maybe try a different analogy?
Your assertion here, without evidence, demonstrates nothing but that this is your personal assertion.
My study of Genesis 1 and 2 over many years does not prove that Gen 1 contradicts Gen 2. Instead, Genesis 2 presents a view of creation that presupposes the completion of God's work of creation that has been outlined in Gen 1.
We see this in Gen 2:1-3 (NIV):
In these 3 verses, we have a demonstration of the Gen 1 narrative brought to its logical conclusion. The vocab and the style are similar.
I refer you to Gleason Archer's excellent explanation of this in Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties and his brief article, 'Doesn't Genesis 2 present a different creation order than Genesis 1?' (Regency Reference Library, Zondervan, pp. 68-69).
Were humans created before or after the other animals?
After the other animals
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and the cattle after their kind ... And God said, Let us make man ... So God created man in his own image. Genesis 1:25-27
Before the other animals
And the Lord God said it is not good that man should be alone; I will make a help-meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. Genesis 2:18-19
I didn't realise points obvious from basic reading comprehension needed "evidence", but there you go.
Um, yes? So?Were you in New York City to see the events when they happened. If you weren't, you and I depend on eyewitness accounts in print, video, etc.
Well, if you ignore the 2000 odd years difference between the primary evidence, and the different recording technologies, sure.And we have eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life, death and resurrection appearances. The analogy is perfectly OK.
2000 years is different to 200.So are you prepared to accept the eyewitness accounts of the Endeavour ship coming to Australia in 1770 but you are not prepared to accept the eyewitness accounts recorded in the reliable Scriptures?
Oz
That's not "evidence" that's opinion. Post hoc justification, even.You didn't take notice of the evidence I provided explaining that Genesis 2 presumes the evidence from Gen 1 and that Gen 2 is the logical conclusion of the evidence from Gen 1.
I didn't realise points obvious from basic reading comprehension needed "evidence", but there you go.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?