Does the Bible Contradict Itself ?

[Subduction Zone]

Okay. That's where the problem lies.
Luke 2
Verse 1
Verse 2

Luke 2:1 Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.
Luke 2:2 This was the first census to take place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.

Do you understand Luke's error now?

EDIT: This of course was not his only one, but it is a killer.

 

[nPeace]

Do you understand Luke's error now?

EDIT: This of course was not his only one, but it is a killer.

What are you talking about? How do you read?

Luke 2:1
Luke 2:2

The translations say the first census was from Augustus.
The second was the one from Quirinius.

What is so hard about that that you don't get it, or are you deliberately refusing to understand.

Luke 2:1, 2
This was the first registration issued by Augustus.

Acts 5:37
This was the second registration under Quirinius, for inscriptions discovered at and near Antioch revealed that some years earlier Quirinius had served as the emperor’s legate in Syria. (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, by W. Ramsay, 1979, pp. 285, 291)

Concerning this, the Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament in Crampon’s French Bible (1939 ed., p. 360) says: “The scholarly researches of Zumpt (Commentat. epigraph., II, 86-104; De Syria romana provincia, 97-98) and of Mommsen (Res gestae divi Augusti) place beyond doubt that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria.” Many scholars locate the time of Quirinius’ first governorship as somewhere between the years 4 and 1 B.C.E., probably from 3 to 2 B.C.E. Their method of arriving at these dates, however, is not solid, and the actual period of this governorship remains indefinite. His second governorship, however, included 6 C.E., according to details reported by Josephus.—Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 26 (ii, 1).

So historian and Bible writer Luke was correct when he said concerning the registration at the time of Jesus’ birth: “This first registration took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria,” distinguishing it from the second, which occurred later under the same Quirinius and to which Gamaliel makes reference as reported by Luke at Acts 5:37.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What are you talking about? How do you read?

Luke 2:1
Luke 2:2

The translations say the first census was from Augustus.
The second was the one from Quirinius.

Wrong, you are not reading those two verses together. It says that the census taken was done when Quirinius was first in office:

"This was the first census to take place while Quirinius was governor of Syria."

What is so hard about that that you don't get it, or are you deliberately refusing to understand.

You are talking about yourself again. Verse 2 is about that census:

"
This was the first census to take place while Quirinius was governor of Syria."

Luke 2:1, 2
This was the first registration issued by Augustus.

Do you understand your error now? It appears that you do not.

Acts 5:37
This was the second registration under Quirinius, for inscriptions discovered at and near Antioch revealed that some years earlier Quirinius had served as the emperor’s legate in Syria. (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, by W. Ramsay, 1979, pp. 285, 291)

Concerning this, the Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament in Crampon’s French Bible (1939 ed., p. 360) says: “The scholarly researches of Zumpt (Commentat. epigraph., II, 86-104; De Syria romana provincia, 97-98) and of Mommsen (Res gestae divi Augusti) place beyond doubt that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria.” Many scholars locate the time of Quirinius’ first governorship as somewhere between the years 4 and 1 B.C.E., probably from 3 to 2 B.C.E. Their method of arriving at these dates, however, is not solid, and the actual period of this governorship remains indefinite. His second governorship, however, included 6 C.E., according to details reported by Josephus.—Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 26 (ii, 1).

So historian and Bible writer Luke was correct when he said concerning the registration at the time of Jesus’ birth: “This first registration took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria,” distinguishing it from the second, which occurred later under the same Quirinius and to which Gamaliel makes reference as reported by Luke at Acts 5:37.

We don't even know if that was a second census or not. It does not help you and I have no idea why you keep referring to it.

And you need to find a scholarly source, not an apologist source. Apologists are well known liars for Jesus. Let's try to stick to reliable sources. My sources refute that claim. Both independent and biased ones. We know where Qurinius was and what he was doing when Jesus was supposedly being born. He was not in Syria at the time.

Let's go over the errors one more time. The claim that Augustus wanted to tax the entire world was a very minor error. I did not even count that since it was rather obvious that he meant all of Rome's "world". The first serious error was to imply a universal census. That never happened. It would make no sense at all to have a universal census and no record at all of it and records of much smaller censuses.

Second, we know where Quirinius was throughout his life. He first became governor in Syria at the year 6CE and that was when he took his census. That was the first census that he took, this is Luke's first fatal error.

And then he claimed that census would cause Joseph to go to Bethlehem, that is the third serious error and the second fatal one. The author of Luke lied.

 

[nPeace]

Wrong, you are not reading those two verses together. It says that the census taken was done when Quirinius was first in office:

"This was the first census to take place while Quirinius was governor of Syria."



You are talking about yourself again. Verse 2 is about that census:

"
This was the first census to take place while Quirinius was governor of Syria."



Do you understand your error now? It appears that you do not.



We don't even know if that was a second census or not. It does not help you and I have no idea why you keep referring to it.

And you need to find a scholarly source, not an apologist source. Apologists are well known liars for Jesus. Let's try to stick to reliable sources. My sources refute that claim. Both independent and biased ones. We know where Qurinius was and what he was doing when Jesus was supposedly being born. He was not in Syria at the time.

This is my last post on this.
I am not beating my head against a brick wall.

I showed you that there are 2 census mentioned by Luke. (Luke 2:1, 2; Acts 5:37)
How you read or misread them is entirely up to you. I showed your claim that no census came from Augustus, and that Qurinius was not governor at that time, to be false.
I provided documented evidence to show this. You ignored it.

I posted you a link which was from a museum, and you dismissed it as coming from apologist website, which again is false.
Although I don't see why you have a problem with apologist websites, but want to argue with them.
I provided documented evidence to show what is true. You ignored it.

I understand you don't like to be wrong, but get over it. Fair is fair, and right now, you aren't playing fair. I take no delight in this kind of behavior. it's most frustrating.

All the evidence shows that Luke's accounts do not contradict scripture.
Next. Or Goodbye.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is my last post on this.
I am not beating my head against a brick wall.

I showed you that there are 2 census mentioned by Luke. (Luke 2:1, 2; Acts 5:37)

No, you only showed that censuses were mentioned twice. They may have been the same census.

How you read or misread them is entirely up to you. I showed your claim that no census came from Augustus, and that Qurinius was not governor at that time, to be false.
I provided documented evidence to show this. You ignored it.

Now this is dishonesty on your part and you should know it. Your reference to a possible later census in no way helps your case. And I did not claim that no census came from Augustus. What I said was that there was no universal census and that is a well accepted fact. There were individual censuses at different times for different areas. The Bible story already has a serious problem with reality. It is not proper to try to make false claims about what others have said. And the so called evidence that you provided was of no value. You used biased sources every single time. I asked for proper unbiased sources, preferably with references to where they got their ideas from. As I did. Your claim to show that anything I said was false appears to be a lie.

I posted you a link which was from a museum, and you dismissed it as coming from apologist website, which again is false.
Although I don't see why you have a problem with apologist websites, but want to argue with them.
I provided documented evidence to show what is true. You ignored it.

I did not ignore it. I refuted it. Do you need me to go back and do that again? At best it was a mistranslation. It does not say that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria, a claim which according to historians makes no sense. It only says that Syrius held a legateship ( I had to go back to get the right term ) twice. Once in Syria and once in Phonecia. From my well supported (unlike your totally unsupported) source:


"The Tivoli inscription has nevertheless been cited to support the view that a second legateship for Quirinius would have been possible. This is actually a mistranslation; properly, it should say that the person, being a legate of Augustus for the second time, "he received Syria and Phoenicia." That is, the person performed public service twice, and the last time, he was legate to Syria (Anchor Bible, p. 403)."

Your "museum" is in the Vatican. Hardly a neutral source. Worse yet there are no sources given. It does not even give the original Latin so that people could see if their translation was correct. Your source is less than worthless.

I understand you don't like to be wrong, but get over it. Fair is fair, and right now, you aren't playing fair. I take no delight in this kind of behavior. it's most frustrating.

How am I not being fair? When I use sources that are trying to prove that your nonsense is wrong I openly admit that they may be biased. All you can find are biased sources and you won't admit that they might be biased. I also found neutral sources that agree with me and you can't find any neutral sources that agree with you. You are right that I do not like to be wrong. That is why I check the sources that I use. It is why I check the sources that you use. You have only used biased sources. I have not. And of course your behavior is frustrating to you. You can't find any valid sources that support you and even the sources that you find cannot support their own claims. I would be embarrassed to if I was you.

All the evidence shows that Luke's accounts do not contradict scripture.
Next. Or Goodbye.

And you are 100% wrong. I have demonstrated that in multiple ways. You have not even touched upon the claim that they would have to go to their ancestral home. Do you realize how idiotic that is? Can you be honest on at least one small point? Actually not all that small.

The problem with the Bible, if you take it literally, is that it is self refuting.

 

[nPeace]

No, you only showed that censuses were mentioned twice. They may have been the same census.



Now this is dishonesty on your part and you should know it. Your reference to a possible later census in no way helps your case. And I did not claim that no census came from Augustus. What I said was that there was no universal census and that is a well accepted fact. There were individual censuses at different times for different areas. The Bible story already has a serious problem with reality. It is not proper to try to make false claims about what others have said. And the so called evidence that you provided was of no value. You used biased sources every single time. I asked for proper unbiased sources, preferably with references to where they got their ideas from. As I did. Your claim to show that anything I said was false appears to be a lie.



I did not ignore it. I refuted it. Do you need me to go back and do that again? At best it was a mistranslation. It does not say that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria, a claim which according to historians makes no sense. It only says that Syrius held a legateship ( I had to go back to get the right term ) twice. Once in Syria and once in Phonecia. From my well supported (unlike your totally unsupported) source:


"The Tivoli inscription has nevertheless been cited to support the view that a second legateship for Quirinius would have been possible. This is actually a mistranslation; properly, it should say that the person, being a legate of Augustus for the second time, "he received Syria and Phoenicia." That is, the person performed public service twice, and the last time, he was legate to Syria (Anchor Bible, p. 403)."

Your "museum" is in the Vatican. Hardly a neutral source. Worse yet there are no sources given. It does not even give the original Latin so that people could see if their translation was correct. Your source is less than worthless.



How am I not being fair? When I use sources that are trying to prove that your nonsense is wrong I openly admit that they may be biased. All you can find are biased sources and you won't admit that they might be biased. I also found neutral sources that agree with me and you can't find any neutral sources that agree with you. You are right that I do not like to be wrong. That is why I check the sources that I use. It is why I check the sources that you use. You have only used biased sources. I have not. And of course your behavior is frustrating to you. You can't find any valid sources that support you and even the sources that you find cannot support their own claims. I would be embarrassed to if I was you.



And you are 100% wrong. I have demonstrated that in multiple ways. You have not even touched upon the claim that they would have to go to their ancestral home. Do you realize how idiotic that is? Can you be honest on at least one small point? Actually not all that small.

The problem with the Bible, if you take it literally, is that it is self refuting.

I see no problem with the accounts. If you do. Okay.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see no problem with the accounts. If you do. Okay.

You seriously don't see a problem with biased accounts that are not supported by scholars? No wonder you have so many easily refuted beliefs.

 

[PruePhillip]

... no such decree "went out" from Caesar Augustus. There was no one single all Roman census. They had gone on before his time and after his time. That was the first one in Judea. Can you understand the difference and your error there? We know when Quirinus had his first census. It was roughly ten years after Jesus was born.

Good to know that.
You have two sources. One from a generic writer (say someone like Josephus, writing for Roman readership) and the other from a biblical author writing for a global readership.)
The generic author says A and the biblical author says B.
We say the biblical author is wrong because the generic author differed. Why do we give more credence to the generic guy? Why can't we say, "Well, the generic account can't be true because the biblical author contradicts him."
A is right, B is wrong - that's an inbuilt bias on behalf of those who don't believe in God (despite, in Joseph's account, he was a Pharisee.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good to know that.
You have two sources. One from a generic writer (say someone like Josephus, writing for Roman readership) and the other from a biblical author writing for a global readership.)
The generic author says A and the biblical author says B.
We say the biblical author is wrong because the generic author differed. Why do we give more credence to the generic guy? Why can't we say, "Well, the generic account can't be true because the biblical author contradicts him."
A is right, B is wrong - that's an inbuilt bias on behalf of those who don't believe in God (despite, in Joseph's account, he was a Pharisee.)

No, multiple sources support my claim. It is not correct to separate them into biblical and no biblical and treat them as equals. There are many records of individual censuses. If there was an overarching one there would definitely have been a record of it. That there is not tells us that that relatively minor claim is false. Meanwhile you ignore the elephants in the room.

 

[PruePhillip]

Good to know that.
You have two sources. One from a generic writer (say someone like Josephus, writing for Roman readership) and the other from a biblical author writing for a global readership.)
The generic author says A and the biblical author says B.
We say the biblical author is wrong because the generic author differed. Why do we give more credence to the generic guy? Why can't we say, "Well, the generic account can't be true because the biblical author contradicts him."
A is right, B is wrong - that's an inbuilt bias on behalf of those who don't believe in God (despite, in Joseph's account, he was a Pharisee.)

No, multiple sources support my claim. It is not correct to separate them into biblical and no biblical and treat them as equals. There are many records of individual censuses. If there was an overarching one there would definitely have been a record of it. That there is not tells us that that relatively minor claim is false. Meanwhile you ignore the elephants in the room.

Why here is an amazing thing. No Greek will argue that Zeus lives on Mount Olympus, no aboriginal really believes some rainbow serpent made the world. But here we are - arguing over which date and which year such and such happened in the New Testament, as if it's history and not mythology.
Absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. You cannot say "The Romans did not..." All you say is "We currently have no evidence that the Romans did not..."
Things were as complex back then as they are now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why here is an amazing thing. No Greek will argue that Zeus lives on Mount Olympus, no aboriginal really believes some rainbow serpent made the world. But here we are - arguing over which date and which year such and such happened in the New Testament, as if it's history and not mythology.
Absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. You cannot say "The Romans did not..." All you say is "We currently have no evidence that the Romans did not..."
Things were as complex back then as they are now.

Some Christians, @nPeace for example, take this myth literally. It is also a contradiction in the Bible .

EDIT:

You also do not seem to understand that a lack of evidence for can be evidence against. In a situation where one would expect evidence of an event and there is none then that is evidence that the event never happened.

 

[PruePhillip]

Some Christians, @nPeace for example, take this myth literally. It is also a contradiction in the Bible .

EDIT:

You also do not seem to understand that a lack of evidence for can be evidence against. In a situation where one would expect evidence of an event and there is none then that is evidence that the event never happened.

There's a contradiction with the thieves on the cross. In one account both thieves railed against Jesus, another account says one repented. The repentance account is more detailed and I would give it credence over the other account.
These authors are either recollecting eye-witness accounts which happened decades ago, or were compiling the accounts from second and third party sources, decades later.
I am happy with both Luke and John being the actual authors of their Gospels. I wonder if John wasn't writing things down as they happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's a contradiction with the thieves on the cross. In one account both thieves railed against Jesus, another account says one repented. The repentance account is more detailed and I would give it credence over the other account.
These authors are either recollecting eye-witness accounts which happened decades ago, or were compiling the accounts from second and third party sources, decades later.
I am happy with both Luke and John being the actual authors of their Gospels. I wonder if John wasn't writing things down as they happened.

It is almost certain that John was not the author of John. It is thought to have been the last Gospel written and the earliest date I have seen for it is 90 CE.

 

[PruePhillip]

It is almost certain that John was not the author of John. It is thought to have been the last Gospel written and the earliest date I have seen for it is 90 CE.

Be careful about taking on board "received wisdom" about these things.
I have noted here before the intractable issue about the domestication of camels in the Bronze Age and how this contradicts the Abraham account in Genesis. Only it doesn't, but you can't argue with received wisdom.
I believe John wrote John because the style of writing, both in the Gospels and his Epistle and Revelation are so similar.
And Luke was the physician - it shows in his writing, a man who sensed history, the natural world and even marine technology. His boat account in Acts is a classic for people studying ancient navigation and shipping.

 

[nPeace]

@Skwim
You may be happy to know I started to research Azariah, and you may be delighted with the results.

I am not finished, but I happened on these, while researching the Septuagint.

Introduction to the Septuagint

History of the Septuagint

This is the one that may interest you.
Notable Differences between the Masoretic and the Septuagint

Azariah is considered here at 22:16

New Testament Quotations that Follow the Septuagint

You may also want to view from here 10:16

Despite these copying errors, and slight differences in wording, as I mentioned, this does not interfere with the overall harmony of the scriptures.

Consider - the Septuagint and other reasons for the trustworthiness of the scriptures.

 

[nPeace]

No, multiple sources support my claim. It is not correct to separate them into biblical and no biblical and treat them as equals. There are many records of individual censuses. If there was an overarching one there would definitely have been a record of it. That there is not tells us that that relatively minor claim is false. Meanwhile you ignore the elephants in the room.

There are many records of individual census, so if I ask you to provide all of them, can you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are many records of individual census, so if I ask you to provide all of them, can you?

Logic is not in your tool box.

Try again.

 

[PruePhillip]

No, multiple sources support my claim. It is not correct to separate them into biblical and no biblical and treat them as equals. There are many records of individual censuses. If there was an overarching one there would definitely have been a record of it. That there is not tells us that that relatively minor claim is false. Meanwhile you ignore the elephants in the room.

The elephant in the room with the Gospels is whether the claim of Jesus is true or not.
We cannot prove a negative. Arguing over whether there was or was not a census in
any particular year is just a way of avoiding that elephant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The elephant in the room with the Gospels is whether the claim of Jesus is true or not.
We cannot prove a negative. Arguing over whether there was or was not a census in any particular year is just a way of avoiding that elephant.

We were talking about the myth of the nativity. We can deal with that later. A little bit of honesty is needed before one can ask for a ton of it.

 

[PruePhillip]

We were talking about the myth of the nativity. We can deal with that later. A little bit of honesty is needed before one can ask for a ton of it.

With the nativity some skeptics take references to the Old Testament
and argue whether such and such a verse can support the story of the
nativity.
(mind you - OT references to the crucifixion, suffering, rejection, preaching
etc are conveniently ignored.)
I believe the nativity because it is recorded in the New Testament. A
virgin gave birth to the Son of God. This son was of the house of David
and born in Bethlehem. I am okay with that - it's an article of faith, not
reason. For those who had no faith and were not moved by what He did
or what He said, there was always the Get Out Of Jail Card - he's not from
Bethlehem and he's not of the house of David. The bible is designed like
that.