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.
Um, yes? So?Well, if you ignore the 2000 odd years difference between the primary evidence, and the different recording technologies, sure.
2000 years is different to 200.
It is also possible you do not know what part of the bible I was referencing when I said that. Yes, in the bible, Jacob breeds PATTERNLESS goats in a specific way WITH EACH OTHER to get striped offspring. He does a similar thing with sheep, but they are spotted. If you know anything about genetics like I do, you would know that the striped allele is dominant over the patternless one; it is literally impossible to consistently get striped offspring from nonstriped parents (in the case of goats).Goats will separate into herds according to the patterns of their coats.
And the offspring will be of similar patterns. It's possible you've
not herded goats.
Again, not "evidence", opinion.You wouldn't be asking this question if you had absorbed the evidence I provided in this brief article by Dr Gleason Archer, 'Doesn't Genesis 2 present a different creation order than Genesis 1?'
No one disagrees with this. However, the style of the chroniclers must be taken into account, a poetic eyewitness description and a scientific eyewitness description may be unrecognisably different to each other, but refer to the same events.Historical, eyewitness evidence is still historical, eyewitness evidence, whether it is 2, 200 or 2,000 years ago.
That it's an interpretive opinion, not "evidence".Not true! I provided you with evidence given by Dr Gleason Archer. I provided a link to evidence. What are you complaining about?
That's true.AD doesn't mean after death. Never did.
You forgot about the lying ones. Furthermore, if context is the issue, then bring the context, don't just claim it.lol, I won't bother with all of this but clearly if you ignore context then you have these imaginary contradictions. God's anger lasts forever against his enemies but against his own people, his anger is short. So all of these things are simply based upon contextual fallacies.
Okay, thanks, Oz.You suggest you do a LOT more research. In case you are too lazy for that, here is some research done for you by the evangelical scholars at bible.org to provide evidence that Jesus was born in 4BC: 'The Birth of Jesus Christ'.
Your scoffing at this research does not help your cause.
No one disagrees with this. However, the style of the chroniclers must be taken into account, a poetic eyewitness description and a scientific eyewitness description may be unrecognisably different to each other, but refer to the same events.
There's also the small issue of transmission and editing errors, that tend to accumulate the more time passes. It's not just scripture, either. It's a simple fact of historical research. This is why we know more about what happened in the Second World War than in the First, and more about what happened in the First World War than in the Crusades, and more about what happened in the Crusades than in the Trojan War, and so on.
"In evaluating the significance of these statistics...one should consider, by way of contrast, the number of manuscripts which preserve the text of the ancient classics. Homer's Iliad ... is preserved by 457 papyri, 2 uncial manuscripts, and 188 minuscule manuscripts. Among the tragedians the witnesses to Euripides are the most abundant; his extant works are preserved in 54 papyri and 276 parchment manuscripts, almost all of the later dating from the Byzantine period...the time between the composition of the books of the New Testament and the earliest extant copies is relatively brief. Instead of the lapse of a millennium or more, as is the case of not a few classical authors, several papyrus manuscripts of portions of the New Testament are extant which were copies within a century or so after the composition of the original documents" (The Text Of The New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption & Restoration, 1992, Third Enlarged Edition, Oxford University Press, pp. 33-35
I know, and still very, very unreliable. Even worse, a lot of it was passed around by word of mouth before being written down, and if you have ever played the telephone game, you know how badly an account can end up being distorted that way.Historical, eyewitness evidence is still historical, eyewitness evidence, whether it is 2, 200 or 2,000 years ago.
I'm sure the defendant and his attorney would care a great deal. Something like that is enough to induce reasonable doubt in a jury..
No disrespect intended but...asking this question reminds me of a crime scene. Two witnesses see the same crime but one says the man had on a red shirt and the other says he had on a green shirt. Who cares?
Really. You don't see two different claims as to the time of the birth of Jesus as a contradiction?The important fact was Jesus was born. I don't see that as a contradiction.
The discussion isn't about Jesus' death, but the year of his birth.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
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.
And we have eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life, death and resurrection appearances. The analogy is perfectly OK.
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
You wrote in #78:
You missed these factors:
a. There was no reason for other historians to record the resurrection when there are accurate historical records in Scripture.
b. These reliable historical records present eyewitness testimony of witnesses to Jesus' post-resurrection appearances.
c. There was no need for further verification of eyewitness testimony when there are records throughout the 4 Gospels and the Book of Acts.
There were historical writers after the close of the New Testament who affirmed the historicity of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances (which confirm he had risen from the dead). These include:
Tertullian affirmed the resurrection of Jesus and the resurrection of believers in the future in, 'On the Resurrection of the Flesh'.
Jack Wellman details 'Historical Evidence of Jesus Christ's Resurrection', including the expert evidence of lawyer, Dr Simon Greenleaf.
Oz
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.
Catch up, chief.Um...what?
You do realise that AD stands for Anno Domini, Latin for 'the year of our Lord' and that AD 1 was (supposed) to have been the year that Jesus was born.
But the again, why let reality stand in the way of another yawn tactic rant against science?
You forgot about the lying ones. Furthermore, if context is the issue, then bring the context, don't just claim it.
Catch up, chief.
Why do you think we have a generation of Thalidomites?
Because scientists [allegedly] didn't go far enough.
I've already been corrected on that, and have responded to the correction.
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?