Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

[metis]

Nebraska man was not a man. Why the fraud?

In 1917, we knew little about even the basic ToE let alone the specifics, and "Nebraska Man" was not a hoax but was an error in judgement: Nebraska Man - Wikipedia

BTW, it was the scientific community who corrected the error.

 

[Little Dragon]

The older the Bible gets the less reliable it is. Which of course makes sense when it comes to history.

Very true. Information entropy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They do not give Christ's birthdate so please explain your reasoning.

Okay, so you have never properly studied the Bible I see.

Matthew has him born in the time when King Herod was still alive. He died in 4 BCE and split his kingdom up between his three sons and his sister. Archelaus was the son that took over Judea, where Bethlehem is. He messed up his reign so badly that the Romans took over and kicked him out. That was the first time that any part of Israel became part of the Roman empire. So they had to tax it. That was why they had a census. And we know who ran that census. That was when Quirinius first became the governor of Syria, by the way his history is well known too. Luke specifically states that it was the Census of Quirinius. That was in 6 CE, ten years after Herod died.

Christian apologists try to make excuses but they all fall flat. For one thing censuses were illegal in Israel. That dates back to the time of King David. There are even Bible verses about when David broke that law. It was a big no no. It was known where Quirinius was since he was an important Roman. You just cannot get Quirinius and King Herod together to break a Hebrew law.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Okay, so you have never properly studied the Bible I see.

Matthew has him born in the time when King Herod was still alive. He died in 4 BCE and split his kingdom up between his three sons and his sister. Archelaus was the son that took over Judea, where Bethlehem is. He messed up his reign so badly that the Romans took over and kicked him out. That was the first time that any part of Israel became part of the Roman empire. So they had to tax it. That was why they had a census. And we know who ran that census. That was when Quirinius first became the governor of Syria, by the way his history is well known too. Luke specifically states that it was the Census of Quirinius. That was in 6 CE, ten years after Herod died.

Christian apologists try to make excuses but they all fall flat. For one thing censuses were illegal in Israel. That dates back to the time of King David. There are even Bible verses about when David broke that law. It was a big no no. It was known where Quirinius was since he was an important Roman. You just cannot get Quirinius and King Herod together to break a Hebrew law.

It is you who have not properly studied the Bible.
King David was punished for the census that he took. That is true. But when God had the Romans rule over Israel they are under Roman rule.

As to the names that you give and the his-story that you give, you have more errors.
You said "Matthew was born ..." I suppose you mean Christ was born.
First, there is no such thing as the infallible history. That con job is used from time to time.
Second, Quirinius does not exist in the King James Bible. So where did you get that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is you who have not properly studied the Bible.
King David was punished for the census that he took. That is true. But when God had the Romans rule over Israel they are under Roman rule.

Please, God didn't do that. Rome did that. And we know when it happened. King Herod was not under Roman rule.

As to the names that you give and the his-story that you give, you have more errors.
You said "Matthew was born ..." I suppose you mean Christ was born.
First, there is no such thing as the infallible history. That con job is used from time to time.
Second, Quirinius does not exist in the King James Bible. So where did you get that?

Wow! You might need some new glasses since I did not say that. I said "Matthew has him born". You can check the post, it has not been edited. If I edited it you would see a note stating that I did.

Second as to Quirinius not being in the KJV, yes he is. Once again you show that you have never studied the Bible. They used a different spelling. But he is in there:

"2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)"

That is Luke 2 2. The spelling of some names is different in the KJV. You should be aware of that.

And you cannot claim that the Bible is "historic" if you reject the most reliable history that we have. Of course you reject the most reliable science that we have. It does make for some high comedy at times:

"The Bible is scientific"

But over 99% of scientists will point out how it is wrong.

"Well they aren't doing science" (or some other weak excuse)

"The Bible is historic"

But historians will point out clear historical errors in the Bible.

"Well historians got the history wrong".

It is too predictable and very funny at times.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Please, God didn't do that. Rome did that. And we know when it happened. King Herod was not under Roman rule.

Wow! You might need some new glasses since I did not say that. I said "Matthew has him born". You can check the post, it has not been edited. If I edited it you would see a note stating that I did.

Second as to Quirinius not being in the KJV, yes he is. Once again you show that you have never studied the Bible. They used a different spelling. But he is in there:

"2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)"

That is Luke 2 2. The spelling of some names is different in the KJV. You should be aware of that.

And you cannot claim that the Bible is "historic" if you reject the most reliable history that we have. Of course you reject the most reliable science that we have. It does make for some high comedy at times:

"The Bible is scientific"

But over 99% of scientists will point out how it is wrong.

"Well they aren't doing science" (or some other weak excuse)

"The Bible is historic"

But historians will point out clear historical errors in the Bible.

"Well historians got the history wrong".

It is too predictable and very funny at times.

Big fail. So the names are spelled different so they are the same.

But wait. You still would have a problem, because many people have the same name.
George Foreman named his sons George.

Here are some predictions from the Bible that came true.

The control of the Catholic Church of Europe and its Inquisitions. – Rev 2

The black plague to break the power of the Catholic Church. – Rev 2

The famine in the early 1300s to break the power of the Catholic Church. – Rev 2

And you are a prediction that has come true now in the last days, an exact prediction with exact details and timing?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Big fail. So the names are spelled different so they are the same.

But wait. You still would have a problem, because many people have the same name.
George Foreman named his sons George.

Here are some predictions from the Bible that came true.

The control of the Catholic Church of Europe and its Inquisitions. – Rev 2

The black plague to break the power of the Catholic Church. – Rev 2

The famine in the early 1300s to break the power of the Catholic Church. – Rev 2

And you are a prediction that has come true now in the last days, an exact prediction with exact details and timing?

Guess what? They still have the same spelling in the original sources. That was not English, just in case you did not know. This is one of the absolute worst arguments that a person can use. It only shows that the person that used the George Foremen explanation has no understanding of his book of myths at all.

Once again, the original to this was written in Greek. The oldest manuscripts are in Greek and can be retranslated today. In Luke, which was written in Greek his name is "Κυρήνιος." Can you read that? I can't. At the time of King James it was translated as Cyrenius. Today, and this change occurred because it is probably more accurate is Quirinius.

That is the same name. Neither translation changes what the original says.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Guess what? They still have the same spelling in the original sources. That was not English, just in case you did not know. This is one of the absolute worst arguments that a person can use. It only shows that the person that used the George Foremen explanation has no understanding of his book of myths at all.

Once again, the original to this was written in Greek. The oldest manuscripts are in Greek and can be retranslated today. In Luke, which was written in Greek his name is "Κυρήνιος." Can you read that? I can't. At the time of King James it was translated as Cyrenius. Today, and this change occurred because it is probably more accurate is Quirinius.

That is the same name. Neither translation changes what the original says.

You do not have the original Greek so you are wrong again.

But even with the same spelling it does not prove your case.
How many Mary's are in the NT?

Big total failure by you.

And Bingo, you fulfilled prophecy again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do not have the original Greek so you are wrong again.

What makes you think that the much vaunted Christian manuscripts are not in Greek? This is I have to hear.

But even with the same spelling it does not prove your case.
How many Mary's are in the NT?

But it does. The rulers of that area back then were recorded. When it came to nobility names were made clear as to who was who. It did not matter as much for the average citizen. And you are now just making excuses.

Excuses are not refutations. You need to remember that.

Big total failure by you.

And Bingo, you fulfilled prophecy again.

No, you failed. You made excuses. Incredibly weak and ignorant excuses. Excuses are not refutations. You need to show that historians are wrong. But since you do not understand history either you will not be able to do that.


And please, no more falsehoods about prophecy. Your interpretation of the Bible does not make something a prophecy. If you want to claim that something is a prophecy there are certain logical and reasonable standards that you need to meet. Otherwise you are saying that Nostradamus was a prophet. And that Muhammad was one too. You cannot only claim that the Bible has prophets. That would be another logical fallacy on your part.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

What makes you think that the much vaunted Christian manuscripts are not in Greek? This is I have to hear.


But it does. The rulers of that area back then were recorded. When it came to nobility names were made clear as to who was who. It did not matter as much for the average citizen. And you are now just making excuses.

Excuses are not refutations. You need to remember that.

No, you failed. You made excuses. Incredibly weak and ignorant excuses. Excuses are not refutations. You need to show that historians are wrong. But since you do not understand history either you will not be able to do that.


And please, no more falsehoods about prophecy. Your interpretation of the Bible does not make something a prophecy. If you want to claim that something is a prophecy there are certain logical and reasonable standards that you need to meet. Otherwise you are saying that Nostradamus was a prophet. And that Muhammad was one too. You cannot only claim that the Bible has prophets. That would be another logical fallacy on your part.

The originals are no longer around. What makes you think that you possess them?
Who got rid of the originals because they are not needed?
God of course.

Your verbal stuff makes no sense.

The King James Bible is the word of God in English.
God provided it,

So so and so is not in the King James Bible
Also you are still conning with the con of the infallible his-story.
And even if they were the same name, people use the same name ALL THE TIME.

You need to study logic and the Bible.

Bingo, you have fulfilled Biblical prophecy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The originals are no longer around. What makes you think that you possess them?
Who got rid of the originals because they are not needed?
God of course.

The originals are not around. But the copies are. And the language that the Gospels were written in was Greek. The KJV just used a different spelling. It may have made sense at that time since pronunciation of vowels and consonants change over time. The modern translation matches the spelling to how we use those consonants and vowels today. That you do not understand this is rather pathetic.

Your verbal stuff makes no sense.

No, it is rather basic logic that you cannot follow due to your indoctrination.

The King James Bible is the word of God in English.
God provided it,

No, it is just another translation in what is now outdated English. What makes you think that "God provided it"? You need some strong strong evidence for that.

So so and so is not in the King James Bible
Also you are still conning with the con of the infallible his-story.
And even if they were the same name, people use the same name ALL THE TIME.

Yes he is. It is just another spelling. Both the KJV and modern Bibles rely on the oldest manuscripts whenever possible. They are the same manuscripts. The only difference is the spelling. If you get a Concordance you can see that they rely on the same original text.

You need to study logic and the Bible.

Oh my! There goes some extreme projection. You have just demonstrated that you have never studied the Bible properly.

Bingo, you have fulfilled Biblical prophecy.

And yet you cannot find such a prophecy.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

The originals are not around. But the copies are. And the language that the Gospels were written in was Greek. The KJV just used a different spelling. It may have made sense at that time since pronunciation of vowels and consonants change over time. The modern translation matches the spelling to how we use those consonants and vowels today. That you do not understand this is rather pathetic.


No, it is rather basic logic that you cannot follow due to your indoctrination.

No, it is just another translation in what is now outdated English. What makes you think that "God provided it"? You need some strong strong evidence for that.


Yes he is. It is just another spelling. Both the KJV and modern Bibles rely on the oldest manuscripts whenever possible. They are the same manuscripts. The only difference is the spelling. If you get a Concordance you can see that they rely on the same original text.


Oh my! There goes some extreme projection. You have just demonstrated that you have never studied the Bible properly.

And yet you cannot find such a prophecy.

No originals.
Not even the first copies.
God canned them all and how many speak both Greek and Hebrew.

English has a tremendous reach so God produced the King James Bible.

All of your post shows that you cannot understand the word of God because you are not saved. It shows.

 

[McBell]

No originals.
Not even the first copies.
God canned them all and how many speak both Greek and Hebrew.

English has a tremendous reach so God produced the King James Bible.

All of your post shows that you cannot understand the word of God because you are not saved. It shows.

Which of the over 1000 versions of the KJV is the one God produced?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Which of the over 1000 versions of the KJV is the one God produced?

I use a 1789 spelling.
Bible gateway would be okay for that.

 

[McBell]

I use a 1789 spelling.
Bible gateway would be okay for that.

Before or after the Blayney edition?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Before or after the Blayney edition?

Bible gateway says 1987.
I use the 1789.

 

[McBell]

Bible gateway says 1987.
I use the 1789.

ah...
So you do not know.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

ah...
So you do not know.

I already told you .
Bible gateway says 1987.
I use the 1789.
I also have a 1611 facsimile.

What was the first living creature?

 

[McBell]

I use a 1789 spelling.
Bible gateway would be okay for that.

So it is your claim that one of the 1789 versions is the one God Produced?

 

[McBell]

I already told you .
Bible gateway says 1987.
I use the 1789.
I also have a 1611 facsimile.

What was the first living creature?

And I acknowledged that you do not know which 1789 version you are using.
With all the different versions of the King James Bible, you are going to have to more specific as to which one is the one God Produced.

Or do you believe that God made errors that needed to be corrected in the one He produced?