Does the Bible Contradict Itself ?

[nPeace]

Now you are being dishonest and irrational again. And breaking the Ninth Commandment as well. If you do not understand something you should ask questions politely and properly.

Quoting your favorite lines doesn't make you statements any less irrational.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Quoting your favorite lines doesn't make you statements any less irrational.

Please, no trolling. When you make the same errors you get the same response.

Why does reality scare you so much?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's go over what just the Wiki article tells us. Quirinius first became governor of Syria in 6 AD. One of the first things he did was to order a census of the new province of Judea. This was one of three provinces that Herod's kingdom was divided into upon his death.

"There are major difficulties in accepting Luke's account: the census in fact took place in 6 CE, ten years after Herod's death in 4 BCE; there was no single census of the entire empire under Augustus; no Roman census required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors; and the census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family, living in Galilee.[6] Some conservative scholars have argued that Quirinius may have had an earlier and historically unattested term as governor of Syria, or that he previously held other senior positions which may have led him to be involved in the affairs of Judea during Herod’s reign, or that the passage should be interpreted in some other fashion.[8][9][10] These arguments have been rejected by mainline scholarship as "exegetical acrobatics"[11][12] and most have concluded that the author of Luke's gospel made an error.[6]"

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia

Any questions?

 

[nPeace]

Please, no trolling. When you make the same errors you get the same response.

Why does reality scare you so much?

If reality scared me, I would be like you - afraid to admit I am wrong, and make statements like, the above.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If reality scared me, I would be like you - afraid to admit I am wrong, and make statements like, the above.

Please, you are wrong and are afraid to admit it. You could only find highly biased sources and no sources based on scholarly studies of the history of the area. I have repeatedly shown you to be wrong and all you ncan do is to make false claims about others, a breaking of the Ninth Commandment.

Only apologetics sites, sites that regularly lie for Jesus, support you. This should tell you something.

 

[nPeace]

Let's go over what just the Wiki article tells us. Quirinius first became governor of Syria in 6 AD. One of the first things he did was to order a census of the new province of Judea. This was one of three provinces that Herod's kingdom was divided into upon his death.

"There are major difficulties in accepting Luke's account: the census in fact took place in 6 CE, ten years after Herod's death in 4 BCE; there was no single census of the entire empire under Augustus; no Roman census required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors; and the census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family, living in Galilee.[6] Some conservative scholars have argued that Quirinius may have had an earlier and historically unattested term as governor of Syria, or that he previously held other senior positions which may have led him to be involved in the affairs of Judea during Herod’s reign, or that the passage should be interpreted in some other fashion.[8][9][10] These arguments have been rejected by mainline scholarship as "exegetical acrobatics"[11][12] and most have concluded that the author of Luke's gospel made an error.[6]"

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia

Any questions?

After I go through the material, I will let you know.

 

[nPeace]

Please, you are wrong and are afraid to admit it. You could only find highly biased sources and no sources based on scholarly studies of the history of the area. I have repeatedly shown you to be wrong and all you ncan do is to make false claims about others, a breaking of the Ninth Commandment.

Only apologetics sites, sites that regularly lie for Jesus, support you. This should tell you something.

You have the last word.

 

[Subduction Zone]

After I go through the material, I will let you know.

That is reasonable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have the last word.

You could always try to find an unbiased site that can support your beliefs. The problem is that such a source does not appear to exist.

 

[nPeace]

Let's go over what just the Wiki article tells us. Quirinius first became governor of Syria in 6 AD. One of the first things he did was to order a census of the new province of Judea. This was one of three provinces that Herod's kingdom was divided into upon his death.

"There are major difficulties in accepting Luke's account: the census in fact took place in 6 CE, ten years after Herod's death in 4 BCE; there was no single census of the entire empire under Augustus; no Roman census required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors; and the census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family, living in Galilee.[6] Some conservative scholars have argued that Quirinius may have had an earlier and historically unattested term as governor of Syria, or that he previously held other senior positions which may have led him to be involved in the affairs of Judea during Herod’s reign, or that the passage should be interpreted in some other fashion.[8][9][10] These arguments have been rejected by mainline scholarship as "exegetical acrobatics"[11][12] and most have concluded that the author of Luke's gospel made an error.[6]"

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia

Any questions?

I have two questions.

Your source says:
The author of the Gospel of Luke uses it as the narrative means to establish the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1-5), but Luke places the census within the reign of Herod the Great, who died 10 years earlier in 4 BCE. No satisfactory explanation of the contradiction seems possible on the basis of present knowledge, and most scholars think that the author of the gospel made a mistake.

Consider though...
The author of the Gospel of Luke died long before anyone today even set eyes on the text.

Nowhere in Luke's account, did he say, "I am referring to the time when Quirinius was governor in Syria in A B C Z year, and ordered a census.

I do not know who those most scholars are, but it seems apparent to me, and other scholars that they are the ones who made the mistake. Either they misinterpreted the text, or they deliberately interpreted it, in order to discredit the author.
Either way, their interpretation is apparently not correct.

How did they arrived at their conclusion?
How can you prove their interpretation is not wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have two questions.

Your source says:
The author of the Gospel of Luke uses it as the narrative means to establish the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1-5), but Luke places the census within the reign of Herod the Great, who died 10 years earlier in 4 BCE. No satisfactory explanation of the contradiction seems possible on the basis of present knowledge, and most scholars think that the author of the gospel made a mistake.

Consider though...
The author of the Gospel of Luke died long before anyone today even set eyes on the text.

Nowhere in Luke's account, did he say, "I am referring to the time when Quirinius was governor in Syria in A B C Z year, and ordered a census.

I do not know who those most scholars are, but it seems apparent to me, and other scholars that they are the ones who made the mistake. Either they misinterpreted the text, or they deliberately interpreted it, in order to discredit the author.
Either way, their interpretation is apparently not correct.

How did they arrived at their conclusion?
How can you prove their interpretation is not wrong?

It appears that you are as ignorant of how history is done as you are ignorant of how science is done. Usually one can tie dates together by referring to specific events. In Roman history it is usually tied to the dates that particular emperors were in power.


Why do you think that people would lie? There is no need to lie to refute the Bible or to even show that it contradicts itself.

 

[nPeace]

It appears that you are as ignorant of how history is done as you are ignorant of how science is done. Usually one can tie dates together by referring to specific events. In Roman history it is usually tied to the dates that particular emperors were in power.


Why do you think that people would lie? There is no need to lie to refute the Bible or to even show that it contradicts itself.

Is that the best you can do - answer questions with cynicism?
I am not the one having the problem debating properly.

I will try again.
How did they arrived at their conclusion - Can you provide that data?
How can you prove their interpretation is not wrong - or can't you?
Why do you think the author of Luke lied?

You can either answer the questions... properly, or I can answer the questions for you.
In either case, you failed... miserably.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is that the best you can do - answer questions with cynicism?
I am not the one having the problem debating properly.

I will try again.
How did they arrived at their conclusion - Can you provide that data?
How can you prove their interpretation is not wrong - or can't you?
Why do you think the author of Luke lied?

You can either answer the questions... properly, or I can answer the questions for you.
In either case, you failed... miserably.

You still can't reason rationally. I have not failed, you have. If you can't be honest with yourself how can anyone else help you?

Scholars can support their work, that is why they are respected scholars. I am not an expert in the field so I need to rely one the proper experts. You seem to have a huge problem with this simple concept. I explained to you how they did their work. Your approach is not a skeptical approach, your approach is that of a denier. By your standards your computer does not work so why are you here?

You should try applying the same standards to your Bible. By your standards, not by mine, the Bible is a book of lies. Irrational behavior quite often involves inconsistency.

 

[nPeace]

You still can't reason rationally. I have not failed, you have. If you can't be honest with yourself how can anyone else help you?

Scholars can support their work, that is why they are respected scholars. I am not an expert in the field so I need to rely one the proper experts. You seem to have a huge problem with this simple concept. I explained to you how they did their work. Your approach is not a skeptical approach, your approach is that of a denier. By your standards your computer does not work so why are you here?

You should try applying the same standards to your Bible. By your standards, not by mine, the Bible is a book of lies. Irrational behavior quite often involves inconsistency.

You seem to be favoring what appeals to you.
All scholars do not support the interpretation of those scholars who misinterpret the text, in the same way that all scholars do not support the view that the Gospels were written later than 70 AD. or earlier.

I think you are just taking the side that suits your biased opinion, and will not consider anything that goes against your world view.
You must be right, no matter what - whether you can't prove your argument, or whether there is an argument that refutes it.

You can't even prove that what I am saying is not true, but will you admit it? No.
You have all the time to show that you are right. You can't.

All you have is an interpretation from most scholars. The Romans are not going to back you up. Nor does the accounts in the Bible back you up. So you simply should admit that.

In a game of chess, no one declares themselves a winner, if there is a stalemate. That is what dishonesty is.

I think I have been more than fair to you, twice. I only came back the second time, to make certain I have been fair.
So if you cannot provide any answers to the questions - that's the end of my discussion on that matter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seem to be favoring what appeals to you.
All scholars do not support the interpretation of those scholars who misinterpret the text, in the same way that all scholars do not support the view that the Gospels were written later than 70 AD. or earlier.

The vast majority do. You do not seem to realize that in any large enough group there will always be a few loons. Especially if one's superstitious beliefs are challenged

I think you are just taking the side that suits your biased opinion, and will not consider anything that goes against your world view.
You must be right, no matter what - whether you can't prove your argument, or whether there is an argument that refutes it.

Actually there isn't a reliable argument that supports your side. Or at least you could not find any. All you could find was one highly biased source.

You can't even prove that what I am saying is not true, but will you admit it? No.
You have all the time to show that you are right. You can't.

This a typical tactic of those that know they are wrong. You are trying to shift the burden of proof. I supported my claims with reliable sources, you have not be able to support your claims. I don't have to prove you wrong since you don't have one iota of reliable evidence that you are right. For example you can't prove that I can't fly by flapping my arms really hard. The burden of proof is always upon the person making the positive assertion.

All you have is an interpretation from most scholars. The Romans are not going to back you up. Nor does the accounts in the Bible back you up. So you simply should admit that.

The Romans are dead and the Bible has been refuted in countless different ways. The works of the Romans support me. The Bible is a book largely filled with superstition and myth. I am looking pretty good here.

In a game of chess, no one declares themselves a winner, if there is a stalemate. That is what dishonesty is.

Your inability to accept reality does not make this a stalemate. You appear to be playing pigeon chess. In fact now you are beginning to sound like a poe. You do realize that pigeon chess is your game here, don't you?

I think I have been more than fair to you, twice. I only came back the second time, to make certain I have been fair.
So if you cannot provide any answers to the questions - that's the end of my discussion on that matter.

But you haven't. You can't properly support your claims, and then place ridiculous demands upon others. If you were fair you would put the same demands on yourself as you put upon others. I provided the answers. You either did not understand them or are not being honest about them.

Once again, when you do not understand the proper thing to do is to ask questions properly and politely. I would much rather assume that you do not understand that to assume that you are a liar.

 

[nPeace]

The vast majority do. You do not seem to realize that in any large enough group there will always be a few loons. Especially if one's superstitious beliefs are challenged



Actually there isn't a reliable argument that supports your side. Or at least you could not find any. All you could find was one highly biased source.



This a typical tactic of those that know they are wrong. You are trying to shift the burden of proof. I supported my claims with reliable sources, you have not be able to support your claims. I don't have to prove you wrong since you don't have one iota of reliable evidence that you are right. For example you can't prove that I can't fly by flapping my arms really hard. The burden of proof is always upon the person making the positive assertion.



The Romans are dead and the Bible has been refuted in countless different ways. The works of the Romans support me. The Bible is a book largely filled with superstition and myth. I am looking pretty good here.



Your inability to accept reality does not make this a stalemate. You appear to be playing pigeon chess. In fact now you are beginning to sound like a poe. You do realize that pigeon chess is your game here, don't you?



But you haven't. You can't properly support your claims, and then place ridiculous demands upon others. If you were fair you would put the same demands on yourself as you put upon others. I provided the answers. You either did not understand them or are not being honest about them.

Once again, when you do not understand the proper thing to do is to ask questions properly and politely. I would much rather assume that you do not understand that to assume that you are a liar.

So you do not admit that you can't prove anything, but it is obvious that you can't.
I have already presented an argument both from scripture, and outside sources - throwing away the one from the Vatican - all of which you disregarded.

It actually makes no difference going over that again, since it is clear you would never admit that you are not being reasonable here.
Even if the author of Luke was to rise from the dead, and show you his source, or the information was clearly presented to you, contrary to what you want to believe, the sea would dry up, before you accept it.

It really doesn't matter to me, as you are the one making the claim against the Bible, and yet cannot support that claim with any argument that can stand as the truth.

I leave the argument where it has to been left, by mature individuals, until further evidence can come to light that may be able to verifiable prove one side over the other.

JOURNAL ARTICLE
The Date of the Census of Quirinius and the Chronology of the Governors of the Province of Syria
[GALLERY=media, 8617]Clip by nPeace posted Aug 9, 2018 at 10:25 AM[/GALLERY]

You may feel free to do as you please.
Again, have the last word... and a good day as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you do not admit that you can't prove anything, but it is obvious that you can't.
I have already presented an argument both from scripture, and outside sources - throwing away the one from the Vatican - all of which you disregarded.

It actually makes no difference going over that again, since it is clear you would never admit that you are not being reasonable here.
Even if the author of Luke was to rise from the dead, and show you his source, or the information was clearly presented to you, contrary to what you want to believe, the sea would dry up, before you accept it.

It really doesn't matter to me, as you are the one making the claim against the Bible, and yet cannot support that claim with any argument that can stand as the truth.

I leave the argument where it has to been left, by mature individuals, until further evidence can come to light that may be able to verifiable prove one side over the other.

JOURNAL ARTICLE
The Date of the Census of Quirinius and the Chronology of the Governors of the Province of Syria
[GALLERY=media, 8617]Clip by nPeace posted Aug 9, 2018 at 10:25 AM[/GALLERY]

You may feel free to do as you please.
Again, have the last word... and a good day as well.

Why is honesty and reality such a problem for you? I did prove my case beyond a reasonable doubt. You cling to irrationality as if it were a life saver. And this was not a "claim against the Bible". One cannot have a claim against a book of myth. I was merely pointing out some obvious errors in the Bible.

You are once again projecting. You are the one that has been shown to be wrong and can't find a source that supports your claims. This is why I am constantly questioning your honesty.

Even this last article does not appear to support you. It is clearly written by a Christian source since he calls the conflicting date a "problem". It is only a problem if one believes the Bible. It should not be a problem for a historian that only cares about the facts. Having tipped his hand one wonders if he ever does support a claim about a different date for the census.

But let's go over the errors again, since you clearly can't handle them. Luke specifically mentions Qurinius. His history is well known. His history is going to be tied to the emperor at that time, Augustus Caesar. That is why we know where he was when Herod was still the ruler in Judea. He was in Turkey at the time. He could not have been the man that took that census. You appear to be arguing for an earlier census but in doing so you admit that Luke was in error when he said that Quirinius was the governor.

And right now I am forgiving the claim of an empire wide census that Luke made and that never happened.

His next error was even bigger. Census's do not require people to go to their ancestral homelands. We do not do that now and there was no way they could do that then. If would also be counterproductive if they did. Forcing people to interrupt their work and take long journeys for no purpose is beyond idiotic. One taxes people where they live and work. No profit can be had by taxing them based upon where they came from.


There is no doubt that Luke screwed the pooch. You may not like that phrase, but his claim fails on three different levels. That is what happens when a myth is written about an event 70 years in the past.

And you have dodged the other self contradiction. What time of day was Jesus crucified? Only two gospels go over the time and they disagree with each other strongly.

 

[12jtartar]

That pretty much throws inspiration or inspired works out of the window . ;0)

How everybody is confused and conflicted about their very own book, can't be Inspired then, much less directed by a God to accurately preserve for generations !

Besides the original works of the Bible never survived whatsoever . They simply don't exist except for copies made after copies. You're looking at a book literally made after the facts for which the accounts are vauge or spurious at best.

Nowhere Man,
What you said is exactly right, there are no extant Original Autographs, but there are thousands of copies, made by very diligent copiests, who when a mistake was made, rewrote the whole page, and were watched over by diligent people,also.
I know you must be aware of the finding of many manuscripts, The Dead Sea Scrolls at Khirbet Qumran, by the Dead Sea. These scrolls contained almost a thousand copies of parts of the Hebrew Scriptures. The researchers were amazed, when they found these manuscripts, after being lost for over a thousand years, were almost exactly the same as the Scriptures that had been copied over and over. This showed that the copiests were extremely faithful in the copying of the Sacred Scriptures. Just as Jehovah God said, He protected His Word.
In this corrupt world, here is only ONE thing you can put your trust in, God’s word, Psalms 12:6,7, 1Peter 1:25. Just as Jesus said, John 17:17!!! Agape!!

 

[Rishi]

535 Contradictions in the Bible: Contradictions as listed in the SAB book

 

[Skwim]

Nowhere Man,
What you said is exactly right, there are no extant Original Autographs, but there are thousands of copies, made by very diligent copiests, who when a mistake was made, rewrote the whole page, and were watched over by diligent people,also.

And, of course, the scribes who made these copies were never swayed by the special interests of those who commissioned them, unlike those who followed, which has led to more than 50 versions of the Bible. (list of 58 current English versions) Yeah, sure.

.