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.

[David1967]

Is it possible to be both a YEC and a flat earther, or is that one mentalness too many?

YEC and flat earth believers seem to walk hand in hand. Belief in both rely on a predetermined end.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Satan deceives all evolutionists and billions of years people.

Yawn

 

[Subduction Zone]

The King James Bible which is the word of God without error in English, of course.
Multiple new versions of THE word of God, THE Bible makes no sense.
And now billons of people are deceived int thinking that universe came from nothing and that living things came from chemicals and that a one celled creature evolved to mankind.

Hold it a second, so you mean that the KJV does not have the ten year difference in dates of birth of Jesus that are found in Luke and Matthew?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Hold it a second, so you mean that the KJV does not have the ten year difference in dates of birth of Jesus that are found in Luke and Matthew?

The Bible does not have a difference in dates for the birth of Christ.

 

[McBell]

The King James Bible which is the word of God without error in English, of course.
Multiple new versions of THE word of God, THE Bible makes no sense.
And now billons of people are deceived int thinking that universe came from nothing and that living things came from chemicals and that a one celled creature evolved to mankind.

WHICH of the hundreds of KJV do you claim is the "Word of God Without Error"?

Have you figured out which version you use?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible does not have a difference in dates for the birth of Christ.

Yes it does. You should read it some day.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Yes it does. You should read it some day.

Please explain.

 

[YoursTrue]

WHICH of the hundreds of KJV do you claim is the "Word of God Without Error"?

Have you figured out which version you use?

Good morning! While I certainly do not agree with everything you and @SavedByTheLord says, I'd like to hear the answer to that one also. I do believe Saved has some excellent questions. But I'd sure like to hear why SBTL claims the KJV or at least one of them is "without error." Wow is all I can say now, although in your favor, @SavedByTheLord , you do ask some excellent questions about evolution. However -- maybe you should get a few other things straight? Just wondering.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please explain.

I'd like to hear the explanation from @Subduction Zone as well. Good morning!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please explain.

As I said you should read our Bible some day. In Matthew the nativity myth occurs while King Herod is still ruling Judea. Judea was a client kingdom of Rome that was still under self rule. Right away that conflicts with Luke because they would not have been under Roman rule and their law against censuses would have been honored. Rome counted its own citizens for tax purposes. It did not count the citizens of countries around it. But that was only the beginning. Luke specifically names the census and we have good records of the various Roman censuses. After Herod died he broke up Judea into four parts. The largest part, and the one still called "Judea" was taken over by Archelaus. Judea also was where Bethlehem was. Another son, Antipas, had the second largest part and that was where Nazareth was.

Now to the Big Problem. Archelaus failed as a leader. He failed so badly the populace was ready to revolt and Rome knew this. Rome took over Judea as a result. They exiled Archelaus. Quirinius or if you are a KJV fan Cyrenius (the same person, just different anglicizations of his name, ran a census and we know when that was. It was in 6 CE. Herod died in 4 BCE. That is a ten year difference. Luke names Quirinius as the one that took the census. There is a very good history of Quirinius. We know where he was when.

The two books clearly contradict each other. In both who the rulers were and the time.

EDIT: Tagging @YoursTrue so that she gets this. Do you need links for this? I can provide them. If you want to refute it you need historical sources. Not religious ones. Apologists will "Lie for Jesus". It is their job. So I will disregard any apologist sources. You need actual historical sources if you want to claim that the Bible is historical if you want to try to refute this.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

As I said you should read our Bible some day. In Matthew the nativity myth occurs while King Herod is still ruling Judea. Judea was a client kingdom of Rome that was still under self rule. Right away that conflicts with Luke because they would not have been under Roman rule and their law against censuses would have been honored. Rome counted its own citizens for tax purposes. It did not count the citizens of countries around it. But that was only the beginning. Luke specifically names the census and we have good records of the various Roman censuses. After Herod died he broke up Judea into four parts. The largest part, and the one still called "Judea" was taken over by Archelaus. Judea also was where Bethlehem was. Another son, Antipas, had the second largest part and that was where Nazareth was.

Now to the Big Problem. Archelaus failed as a leader. He failed so badly the populace was ready to revolt and Rome knew this. Rome took over Judea as a result. They exiled Archelaus. Quirinius or if you are a KJV fan Cyrenius (the same person, just different anglicizations of his name, ran a census and we know when that was. It was in 6 CE. Herod died in 4 BCE. That is a ten year difference. Luke names Quirinius as the one that took the census. There is a very good history of Quirinius. We know where he was when.

The two books clearly contradict each other. In both who the rulers were and the time.

EDIT: Tagging @YoursTrue so that she gets this. Do you need links for this? I can provide them. If you want to refute it you need historical sources. Not religious ones. Apologists will "Lie for Jesus". It is their job. So I will disregard any apologist sources. You need actual historical sources if you want to claim that the Bible is historical if you want to try to refute this.

You fail because you are assuming things.
There is no such thing as the infallible history.
And many people use the same name.
Quirinius is not even in the KJB.

 

[Eddi]

I have been following this thread for weeks

Edit: and others like it

I have found it both amusing and depressing

It just goes to show that some people are beyond reason, that some people cannot be reasoned with

And that trying to do so is futile

 

[Subduction Zone]

You fail because you are assuming things.
There is no such thing as the infallible history.
And many people use the same name.
Quirinius is not even in the KJB.

LOL! Yes, Quirinius is in the KJB, they just use a different spelling:

2 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

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

I never said that there is no such thing as "infallible history". And of course the Bible has been repeatedly shown to be extremely fallible. But there are things in history that we are very sure of. No one has been able to refute the fact that Quirinius, a more accurate anglicization of his name as written in Luke: "Κυρηνιος", ran his census in 6 CE. I have evidence for my claim, you have none for yours.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

LOL! Yes, Quirinius is in the KJB, they just use a different spelling:

2 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

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

I never said that there is no such thing as "infallible history". And of course the Bible has been repeatedly shown to be extremely fallible. But there are things in history that we are very sure of. No one has been able to refute the fact that Quirinius, a more accurate anglicization of his name as written in Luke: "Κυρηνιος", ran his census in 6 CE. I have evidence for my claim, you have none for yours.

No Quirinius is not in the KJB. So that ends your theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No Quirinius is not in the KJB. So that ends your theory.

Yes, he is. The spelling was different. I explained that to you. I quoted the verse for you. In modern verses they will use the name Quirinius instead of the outdated "Cyrenius". You would not get anywhere near the correct pronunciation from the KJV version.

 

[YoursTrue]

As I said you should read our Bible some day. In Matthew the nativity myth occurs while King Herod is still ruling Judea. Judea was a client kingdom of Rome that was still under self rule. Right away that conflicts with Luke because they would not have been under Roman rule and their law against censuses would have been honored. Rome counted its own citizens for tax purposes. It did not count the citizens of countries around it. But that was only the beginning. Luke specifically names the census and we have good records of the various Roman censuses. After Herod died he broke up Judea into four parts. The largest part, and the one still called "Judea" was taken over by Archelaus. Judea also was where Bethlehem was. Another son, Antipas, had the second largest part and that was where Nazareth was.

Now to the Big Problem. Archelaus failed as a leader. He failed so badly the populace was ready to revolt and Rome knew this. Rome took over Judea as a result. They exiled Archelaus. Quirinius or if you are a KJV fan Cyrenius (the same person, just different anglicizations of his name, ran a census and we know when that was. It was in 6 CE. Herod died in 4 BCE. That is a ten year difference. Luke names Quirinius as the one that took the census. There is a very good history of Quirinius. We know where he was when.

The two books clearly contradict each other. In both who the rulers were and the time.

EDIT: Tagging @YoursTrue so that she gets this. Do you need links for this? I can provide them. If you want to refute it you need historical sources. Not religious ones. Apologists will "Lie for Jesus". It is their job. So I will disregard any apologist sources. You need actual historical sources if you want to claim that the Bible is historical if you want to try to refute this.

As I said you should read our Bible some day. In Matthew the nativity myth occurs while King Herod is still ruling Judea. Judea was a client kingdom of Rome that was still under self rule. Right away that conflicts with Luke because they would not have been under Roman rule and their law against censuses would have been honored. Rome counted its own citizens for tax purposes. It did not count the citizens of countries around it. But that was only the beginning. Luke specifically names the census and we have good records of the various Roman censuses. After Herod died he broke up Judea into four parts. The largest part, and the one still called "Judea" was taken over by Archelaus. Judea also was where Bethlehem was. Another son, Antipas, had the second largest part and that was where Nazareth was.

Now to the Big Problem. Archelaus failed as a leader. He failed so badly the populace was ready to revolt and Rome knew this. Rome took over Judea as a result. They exiled Archelaus. Quirinius or if you are a KJV fan Cyrenius (the same person, just different anglicizations of his name, ran a census and we know when that was. It was in 6 CE. Herod died in 4 BCE. That is a ten year difference. Luke names Quirinius as the one that took the census. There is a very good history of Quirinius. We know where he was when.

The two books clearly contradict each other. In both who the rulers were and the time.

EDIT: Tagging @YoursTrue so that she gets this. Do you need links for this? I can provide them. If you want to refute it you need historical sources. Not religious ones. Apologists will "Lie for Jesus". It is their job. So I will disregard any apologist sources. You need actual historical sources if you want to claim that the Bible is historical if you want to try to refute this.

Ah well some tedious work on my own. First I have to go through your response. (sigh) It IS an interesting point so I'll start combing through it. OK, I started, and I'll be perfectly honest with you, hoping you understand. Let me give you an illustration if I can and if you will accept it. If I go into a store and the music is exceptionally loud and annoying I will not stay. Similarly with a restaurant if I can get out fast enough. Taking that in mind and an example, if you want me to read your response carefully and as thoroughly as possible, I'd appreciate it if you could exchange the word 'myth' for something else -- I know you and some others who claim to be religious of sort do not believe the account, but yes, I would prefer you would call it an account or "what is written."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah well some tedious work on my own

You might look into it. Apologist sources try to make excuses, but they have no valid arguments.

It is an error to make a false idol of the Bible. You should be reading it for its lessons and not for history or science.

 

[YoursTrue]

LOL! Yes, Quirinius is in the KJB, they just use a different spelling:

2 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

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

I never said that there is no such thing as "infallible history". And of course the Bible has been repeatedly shown to be extremely fallible. But there are things in history that we are very sure of. No one has been able to refute the fact that Quirinius, a more accurate anglicization of his name as written in Luke: "Κυρηνιος", ran his census in 6 CE. I have evidence for my claim, you have none for yours

OK, now I'm going to have to pay attention of the more fastidious kind. What exactly are we (you & SBTL) talking about here? The dates surrounding Quirinius, or the "infallible history" concept? First let me know and then I'll have to start researching.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, now I'm going to have to pay attention of the more fastidious kind. What exactly are we (you & SBTL) talking about here? The dates surrounding Quirinius, or the "infallible history" concept? First let me know and then I'll have to start researching.

He likes to use strawman arguments. I never claimed that history is infallible. But there is plenty of evidence for different dates. It is well known when Herod died, and when Archelaus failed and the Romans took over is even better known. The Romans recorded their censuses sinc ethey were important to them. One of the historians, there ae more than just one, that gives us the date is Josephus. It puts Christians in a tight spot since he is one of the very few, and he is the strongest evidence for a historical Jesus. If you claim that he cannot be trusted for a well known Roman date, then how can you trust him when he writes that there was a Jesus?

Here are some known historical facts about the Census of Quirinius (or Cyrenius if you insist on using the KJV). There was a bit of a revolt because censuses were against Jewish law. How was Herod going to break his own law without there being a record of it? It is known how and why his son, who took over for him after he died, screwed up and was deposed by the Romans when they took over his mess. They then had to take a census so that they could tax the people. So the author of Luke got that right. But the census story goes against Matthews date of Jesus's birth being when Herod was still alive.

 

[YoursTrue]

No Quirinius is not in the KJB. So that ends your theory.

So far looking it up, here's what it is:

One reference work says, "The closest literal rendering of the Greek version of his name in English would be Kyreniou, which the translators of the King James Version rendered as Cyrenius.)" Is that why you say that Quirinius is not in the KJV because the spelling is different?
Also wikipedia says about that, "Publius Sulpicius Quirinius ... also translated as Cyrenius,"