My Very Sincere Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Pretend you are hired to paraphrase this verse ...

Luke 23:8 And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him.

Go.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pretend you are hired to paraphrase this verse ...

Luke 23:8 And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him.

Go.

It seems like another error in the New Testament by the writers. Herod died in the year 4BC, roughly the same time as when Jesus was born. I thought that Herod did not see Jesus as a baby since he wanted to kill him at that time.

And when did Jesus start to do miracles?

Herod the Great - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AV1611VET]

It seems like another error in the New Testament by the writers. Herod died in the year 4BC, roughly the same time as when Jesus was born. I thought that Herod did not see Jesus as a baby since he wanted to kill him at that time.

And when did Jesus start to do miracles?

Herod the Great - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There went your paycheck ... next.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There went your paycheck ... next.

If I was doing this for pay I would find a better source than Wikipedia. They are fairly accurate about things like this. So when do you think that he lived? What is your evidence to support an answer different from Wiki's?

And Wiki can be a very good starting point for a researcher. You can follow the links to the articles sources and see if the article is reasonable well supported by the sources. In the past I have seen a few that weren't. That is rather rare today.

 

[AV1611VET]

If I was doing this for pay I would find a better source than Wikipedia. They are fairly accurate about things like this. So when do you think that he lived? What is your evidence to support an answer different from Wiki's?

And Wiki can be a very good starting point for a researcher. You can follow the links to the articles sources and see if the article is reasonable well supported by the sources. In the past I have seen a few that weren't. That is rather rare today.

Are you going to paraphrase the verse, or are you going to yak it to death?

If I hired you to put gas in my car, are you going to stand there and tell me which gas station has the best deal?

 

[pgp_protector]

Are you going to paraphrase the verse, or are you going to yak it to death?

If I hired you to put gas in my car, are you going to stand there and tell me which gas station has the best deal?

So much for being sincere.

As for Gas, they might direct you to another station if your car is a Diesel Engine.

 

[AV1611VET]

As for Gas, they might direct you to another station if your car is a Diesel Engine.

I'm home ... eating pizza.

I hired you to do it, remember?

Meanwhile, back at the OP...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you going to paraphrase the verse, or are you going to yak it to death?

If I hired you to put gas in my car, are you going to stand there and tell me which gas station has the best deal?

How much are you paying? Are you paying the same whether the verse is bogus or not?

I was doing you a favor by pointing out that it was a bogus verse. Thanks for adding it to my repertoire where the Bible is self debunking.

 

[JustMeSee]

Pretend you are hired to paraphrase this verse ...

Luke 23:8 And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him.

Go.

Herod wanted to meet Jesus to validate the miraculous deeds that preceded Him.

 

[AV1611VET]

Herod wanted to meet Jesus to validate the miraculous deeds that preceded Him.

Thank you!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Herod wanted to meet Jesus to validate the miraculous deeds that preceded Him.

Nope, I just read it in context. They have Jesus going in front of Herod for his trial. Herod was dead and buried for over thirty years by then. It is just another Biblical error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have to change my last answer a bit. It was sloppiness by the writers of the New Testament. This was not a referral to Herod the Great, but rather to Herod Antipas, a son of Herod. Can't they keep their Roman rulers straight?

 

[verysincere]

It seems like another error in the New Testament by the writers. Herod died in the year 4BC, roughly the same time as when Jesus was born. I thought that Herod did not see Jesus as a baby since he wanted to kill him at that time.

I'm not clear on why you think that this represents an error on the part of the NT writers. If my memory has held up, there were four King Herods mentioned in the Bible:

Herod the Great (Herod the Ascalonite)

Herod the Tetrarch (son of Herod the Great)

Herod Agrippa I (grandson of Herod the Great)

Herod Agrippa II (great grandson of Herod the Great)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not clear on why you think that this represents an error on the part of the NT writers. If my memory has held up, there were four King Herods mentioned in the Bible:

Herod the Great (Herod the Ascalonite)

Herod the Tetrarch (son of Herod the Great)

Herod Agrippa I (grandson of Herod the Great)

Herod Agrippa II (great grandson of Herod the Great)

I did correct myself. My question, why the mistaken naming of the various Herods in the Bible? The correct way would be to say that the Herod who wanted to kill baby Jesus was Herod the Great and that the Herod who tried him was Herod Antipas.

 

[verysincere]

I have to change my last answer a bit. It was sloppiness by the writers of the New Testament. This was not a referral to Herod the Great, but rather to Herod Antipas, a son of Herod. Can't they keep their Roman rulers straight?

I'm not clear on your purpose. I didn't read the Wikipedia article you cited for Herod the Great but I assume that it tells of the three "King Herods" who followed him. And because you cited that article, I would hope that you read the article. So why are you calling the writers of the NT "sloppy"? A casual reading of your post would suggest that YOU were being sloppy about checking your sources and collecting enough data before accusing the ancient writers of errors. But................

...........Am I missing some tongue-in-cheek message here? You've often pointed out dishonest creationist quote-mine where they will cite some source as supporting their position or claim---but an inspection of the source tells a different story. So was your post meant to illustrate that creationists don't approve of dishonest quote-mining when it comes from the OTHER side???

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not clear on your purpose. I didn't read the Wikipedia article you cited for Herod the Great but I assume that it tells of the three "King Herods" who followed him. And because you cited that article, I would hope that you read the article. So why are you calling the writers of the NT "sloppy"? A casual reading of your post would suggest that YOU were being sloppy about checking your sources and collecting enough data before accusing the ancient writers of errors. But................

...........Am I missing some tongue-in-cheek message here? You've often pointed out dishonest creationist quote-mine where they will cite some source as supporting their position or claim---but an inspection of the source tells a different story. So was your post meant to illustrate that creationists don't approve of dishonest quote-mining when it comes from the OTHER side???

Yep, I was sloppy. No doubt about it.

But so were the writers of the New Testament. It should not be necessary to go to another source to find out that the various Herods in the New Testament were not the same person.

 

[verysincere]

I did correct myself. My question, why the mistaken naming of the various Herods in the Bible? The correct way would be to say that the Herod who wanted to kill baby Jesus was Herod the Great and that the Herod who tried him was Herod Antipas.

1) How was the naming "mistaken"?

2) Why should we assume that "your way" is the "correct way" to name the Herods?

If a writer assumes that his audience knows who is who ---and/or his audience has no reason to obsess over a more exacting naming of the antigonist of the pericope---how has he failed? For example, I've read books about the history of U.S. and Iraq conflicts over the past few decades. There are many references to "President Bush" during the first U.S./Iraq war and during the second U.S./Iraq war ---even though different Presidents were involved. Did the writers of those books "fail" because they were not more specifics to distinguish between George Bush the father and George Bush the son (that is, George H. W. Bush versus George W. Bush??)

And obviously, the Bible is not a single book but a collection of many books. Are you telling us that the authors were somehow negligent for not meeting the descriptive requirements of 21st century readers? And does an exact designation/naming of each of the four Herods impact the narrative in any meaningful way?

This is a prime example of the kinds of cross-cultural bias (some would call it outright bigotry) which happens when modern day readers impose their own cultural standards on ancient authors. And that is also why I got the impression you were having some fun by illustrating the kinds of nit-picking tactics which AV sometimes uses in attacking scientists on various tangential issues. (I hope this "exact naming of the Herods" complaint is not your equivalent to AV's Thalidomide rant.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

When the name is in doubt you use the full name. That is why when you see references to President Adams today it is always either John Adams or John Quincy Adam, unless it is a source that is dealing with people who are very familiar with which president was in office when.

Right now it is obvious to everyone in America, or should be, which Bush was in power for which Iraq war. In less than fifty years that will not be the case.

They should have specified which Herod they were talking about in the Bible. What was done was sloppy.

 

[verysincere]

Yep, I was sloppy. No doubt about it.

But so were the writers of the New Testament. It should not be necessary to go to another source to find out that the various Herods in the New Testament were not the same person.

Do you ACTUALLY believe that the NT authors were focused on writing a history of the Herods? And considering that their audiences knew much about the infamous Herodian kings, I'm amazed that you would expect them to worry about such distinctions. Do you also complain that Moses speaks only of "Pharoah" and never tells us which one?

 

[verysincere]

They should have specified which Herod they were talking about in the Bible. What was done was sloppy.

You've descended into AV-territory on this "they were sloppy" tangent. (Would it not be much more reasonable to say, "The NT writers were not focused on geopolitical historical narrative and did not ascribe to the journalistic standards we might consider important today in terms of unambiguously identifying characters secondary to their theological themes.")

I hope that this doesn't mean that you are also among those who complain that "Bible errors" include "Bats are birds", "Rabbits don't chew cud", and "The Bible writers failed to accurately count legs on grasshoppers." Those are all infamous beginner's blunders of "Intro to OT 101" undergrad hecklers---although I do appreciate them as great teaching opportunities for understanding translation dynamics and cultural differences.