Can an Atheist Prove Any Errors in the Bible?

[Mike]

Logical Bob

Yes, I did ask for evidence of something wrong in the Bible that an atheist could point to. You've pointed to something that isn't as easy as dropping a few posts and calling it done. Before declaring that you've settled the matter, and I live outside of reality, perhaps you can allow a little time. Perhaps not. If it were as cut and dry as you suggest, there really wouldn't be a debate at this point. So you take a matter that has been raging for decades, say your bit and deliver the whole world from this disagreement. You're obviously a smart man. All of humanity has been waiting for such Logical Bob to come along and settle years of debate.

Mutual disrespect aside, could you shed some grace and allow me to consider this rather large issue, or do I have to give you an answer tonight? Be a friend, Logical Bob.

 

[Ed the Ned]

our article would like us to believe that as well as running a small war in Galatia and being ruler of Pisidian Antioch, Quirinius found time not only to be co-governor of Syria, which was hardly next door, but also to undertake a census in Judea on the opposite side of Syria to the rest of his duties.

Sorry quiet a long thing to go through and have not had the time to complete everything. It just seems strange that we are looking at an area the size of South Africa. For Quirinius to be co-governor or governor of Syria is very likely. I have just gone on wikipedia to check the duties of a governor and as I suspected he was not a one man show.

Every governor had at his disposal a diversity of advisors and staff, who were known as his comites (Latin for "companions"); the number of these depended on the governor's social standing and rank. These comites would serve as the governor's executive council, with each supervising a different aspect of the province, and assisting the governor in decision making. In the provinces with a significant legionary presence, the governor's second-in-command was usually a quaestor, a man elected in Rome and sent to the province to serve a mainly financial role, but who could command the military with the governor's approval. In other provinces, governors themselves appointed non-magistrate prefects or procurators to govern a small part of the province and act as their second-in-command.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_governor
I don't know a lot about history and what has been said, but I do know one thing. India has one President that rules the country of over 1 billion people. So for Quirinius to be co-governor or governor while fighting 100's of miles away. Makes sense to me. It seems his social standing was pretty high so his comites must been quite large.

 

[logical bob]

If it were as cut and dry as you suggest, there really wouldn't be a debate at this point. So you take a matter that has been raging for decades, say your bit and deliver the whole world from this disagreement. You're obviously a smart man. All of humanity has been waiting for such Logical Bob to come along and settle years of debate.

Look, I'm not having a go at you. You asked for proof and I've tried to provide that. I was a bit frusrated by the "Luke wouldn't make an error" thing. If you assume the reliability of the Bible in a discussion about whether the Bible is reliable... You know what I'm saying.

This debate hasn't been raging for decades. Look, every year books are published saying aliens built the pyramids, the moon landings were faked and the early French kings were descended from Jesus. There's even a flat earth society. Just because someone will take the other side doesn't mean that there's any real debate here. What I'm trying to show you is that biblical inerrancy is almost as way out as those theories.

I mean no disrespect to you personally, but I have no respect for the practice of apologetics. It's a parody of rational thought which starts with the conclusion and forces the evidence to somehow, anyhow, fit in. Fortunately, William Ramsey wrote in the nineteenth century and things have moved on. Today, an Oxford professor wouldn't be able to publish such unsupported wishful thinking and get it through peer review.

 

[logical bob]

It just seems strange that we are looking at an area the size of South Africa. For Quirinius to be co-governor or governor of Syria is very likely. I have just gone on wikipedia to check the duties of a governor and as I suspected he was not a one man show.

You're right. The governorship of a province the size of Syria could never be a one man show. The governor would have had deputies, assistants and a large bureaucracy to support him. This doesn't mean there were two governors, any more than South Africa has two presidents.

Whatever support the governor had in the crucial period of 6 BC to 4 BC, it wasn't Quirinius. Firstly, we have absolutely no evidence to suggest that it was him. Secondly, we know that he was extremely busy in Asia Minor, over 500 miles from Judea.

And again, the historian Josephus (who Christians usually like because he's one of the two ancient historians to mention Jesus) is quite clear that the census of AD 6 was the first one to be held in Judea.

 

[Mike]

L Bob, we're at a cross road on this matter. Kpd suggested it would end this way, and it did. I have sites I can quote and you do to. The problem with this matter is, I'm not able to handle the content as much as another person would. I sort of got out of my wheel house. I have no doubt that if the right person got involved in this discussion with you, he would offer more a compelling argument than I can. But I opened myself up to everything whether in my wheel house or not. I shouldn't ask a question about historicity that I'm not prepared to defend.

As much as you are convinced of your argument, I am not. You may say that my preconceived belief system clouds my willingness to accept things that contradict it, but I would say the same of you. You could say that I wasn't sincere in posing the challenge, that I had no intention of having dialog. Again, I would just say this particular matter is outside my area of personal knowledge, and the information available on both sides leads me to believe it is not an established fact. Furthermore, I have seen several times in other threads where you make a post as if you "just want to understand", when in reality, you are setting up the pins to knock them down - or at least you feel you're knocking them down. I'm not empowered to convince you otherwise, only One is, and I am not Him. :biglol

 

[logical bob]

You may say that my preconceived belief system clouds my willingness to accept things that contradict it, but I would say the same of you.

I honestly am willing to change my mind based on evidence and I've done so many times in the past. I'm quite prepared to accept that the New Testament agrees with other parts of the historical record in some places. As we briefly discussed in another thread, I agree that Josephus and Tacitus both record Jesus. I'm not sure that I can persuade you that I'm not arguing for a dogmatic position, but I'm not. On atheist sites I tend to come across as quite pro-Christian.

You could say that I wasn't sincere in posing the challenge, that I had no intention of having dialog.

No, it's fair enough. You posed a challenge but you didn't promise to defend every point to the bitter end. If you had, that really would have been unwillingness to challenge your preconceptions.

Furthermore, I have seen several times in other threads where you make a post as if you "just want to understand", when in reality, you are setting up the pins to knock them down - or at least you feel you're knocking them down.

Bit harsh? I don't think I've asked any questions as provocative as the title of this thread. When I started my thread on biblical literalism I didn't comment on any of the responses at all.

If you're interested in debates on the Bible and history it's worth having a look at the relevant bits of FRDB, Rational Skepticism and the now defunct RDF (I'd post links, but I don't think the rules allow it). That's no holds barred debate among skeptics and I learned a lot from taking part. And seriously, if you want convinving sources for future discussions go with the ones that convince the skeptics as well as people who want to be convinced. ;)

Anyway, thanks for the discussion we did have and I hope we can remain on good terms around the boards in future.

 

[Mike]

L Bob, I wasn't trying to be harsh. This was my distinct feeling when I read your title and opening statement from "Two Questions From Bible Literalists". I'm not sure how to quote across different forums, so I just cut & pasted. You open:

Hello all. I've been trying to better understand the belief that the Bible is literally true. These discussions always seem to focus on Genesis; creation and the flood have been endlessly debated. If you don't mind, I'd like to ask two questions about different books. I'm addressing these questions to the people who believe in the flood and the creation of a young earth in 6 days.

1. Is the book of Job literally true? Was there an actual guy to whom bad things happened to settle an argument between God and the devil?

2. What do you make of the Song of Solomon?

I won't argue with anyone who responds. I'm just trying to understand the belief. Thanks for your time.

Come on, L Bob. Were you really trying to "understand"??? That wouldn't appear to be consistent with your M.O. Of course, I enjoy your input and wouldn't think we couldn't be on good terms going forward.

 

[logical bob]

But I didn't argue with anyone!

OK, look, totally honest here. It had never occured to me that anyone would think Job had actually happened. I just took it as read that it was obviously meant to be a fable, a sort of instructive story. Something said in a discussion on a different site made me think that maybe this was a wrong assumption. So I had a straw poll of my favourite Christian fundamentalists and it turned out that it actually was a wrong assumption. And now I do understand better. I threw in the Song of Solomon out of curiousity as it's the other book that seems obviously poetical to me.

That's it. As I keep saying to people, you should try to understand the opposing opinion as well as you can.

 

[ivdavid]

Josephus makes it clear in his account of the census of AD 6/7 that it was the first Roman census of Judea.

Can I have some source reference for my verification please...

Quirinius was ruler of the city of Pisidian Antioch in Asia Minor some time between 10 BC and 1 BC

Is the duration exactly mentioned or is it just a time frame? If the duration is specified, can I have that source reference too...

Hope it's not too much of a bother.

 

[Lgolos]

Not an error, but it'll make you think.

http://deoxy.org/manna.htm

 

[logical bob]

Antiquities[/i] Book 18 Chapter 1]NOW Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to he a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it, by the persuasion of Joazar, who was the son of Beethus, and high priest; so they, being over-persuaded by Joazar's words, gave an account of their estates, without any dispute about it. Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same; so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men.

There’s no one sentence that says in as many words that this was the first census. It seems clear, though, that this “taking account of their substance†is a new thing following the removal of Archelaus (son of Herod the Great). Is it really plausible that this terrorist campaign and the “taking the report of a taxation heinously†because it was “no better than slavery†would have happened if Judea had, in fact, been subject to census some 10 to 12 years before?

And again, nobody has a hint of a reason why the Romans would have had a census in a client kingdom, as Judea was until this time. There would be absolutely no reason for them to do so, and no precedent from anywhere else.

Oh, and just to be clear - Cyrenius=Quirinius.

Edit to add: and of course, Antiquites book 17 covers the previous 14 years and doesn't mention any census.

 

[logical bob]

Quirinius was ruler of the city of Pisidian Antioch in Asia Minor some time between 10 BC and 1 BC

Is the duration exactly mentioned or is it just a time frame? If the duration is specified, can I have that source reference too...

This is a bit more involved. There are two inscriptions in Pisidian Antioch on statues to one Gaius Caristanius Sergius. They state that Gaius was prefect (deputy) to Quirinius, who was duumvir (ruler). One states that it is the first monument in Antioch to be built at public expense.

Based on another inscription it is thought probable, though not 100%, that Pisidian Antioch was founded in 11BC. If that's corrrect, 5 to 10 years seems a plausible time frame for the first monument at public expense.

We know for certain that Quirinius was consul in Rome in 12 BC and that in 1 BC he was appointed rector, or guide, to the Emperor's grandson (a full time job). This gives him 11BC to 2BC as a window of opportunity to be in Pisidia. We know that in 3 BC he was awarded a triumph for his victory against the Homonadensians in neighbouring Galatia.

Putting all this together, it seems likely that Quirnius was a duumvir who needed to appoint a deputy to deal with his duties while he was away fighting in Galatia in the years before 3BC.

There's a certain amount of speculation here and none of this is cast iron proof, but that's ancient history for you. We have very few sources to work with.

Sorry I can't give you one link with all this on. I'm struggling with the site's rule on links to sites with anti-Christian content. Feel free to Google it yourself though, it all checks out.

 

[ivdavid]

And again, nobody has a hint of a reason why the Romans would have had a census in a client kingdom, as Judea was until this time. There would be absolutely no reason for them to do so, and no precedent from anywhere else.

I'll have to do some reading on this... but is there any actual contradicting evidence? If not, doesn't this break down into an 'argument from silence' and such arguments can work both ways - we need context and additional evidence(archaeological) to resolve such issues. I'm a little shaky on historical facts but if there is any concrete evidence against the very possibility of this, then I'd like you to point me to them.

Is it really plausible that this terrorist campaign and the “taking the report of a taxation heinously†because it was “no better than slavery†would have happened if Judea had, in fact, been subject to census some 10 to 12 years before?

Taking this passage of Josephus alone, is this revolt your basis of concluding that this must have been the first census?
Does a direct roman census in judea always necessitate the conclusion of a revolt or uprising against Rome?
Besides, wasn't the earlier census decreed by Rome, perhaps to be carried out under Herod allowing for all the jewish customs? Is there a precedence on the scale of this 6AD census where Judea is taken over as a province? Basically, were the same conditions of 6AD prevalent in the earlier census to necessitate an inference of the same results?

but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it, by the persuasion of Joazar, who was the son of Beethus, and high priest; so they, being over-persuaded by Joazar's words, gave an account of their estates, without any dispute about it.

Couldn't something similar to this have happened during the first census where it didn't end in a revolt? Couldn't Josephus have refrained from mentioning it either because that first 'peaceful' census didn't warrant mention or because he was unaware of it?(the former case is more likely)

It seems clear, though, that this “taking account of their substance†is a new thing following the removal of Archelaus (son of Herod the Great).

So, Is 'taking the census' indicative of a 'new' first of sorts or is the 'removal of Archelaus and imposing direct Roman rule' a 'new' first of sorts?

In this passage, josephus records three main events among others -
i) removal of Herod's son and Quirinius' entry into Judea (Rome takes over Judea as province)
ii) the census
iii) the revolt against Rome on the basis of the census

But what is the focus of josephus - is he drawing attention to a 'first' census or to the 'first' revolt which required the backdrop of the census? The passage continues on about the zealots and their madness. The census seems to be only referred to as the spark that set the revolts off.

I think you're questioning why such a violent reaction didn't come forth during an earlier census. I feel it's because the scenario was different then - the jews still had their own king and they were still a client kingdom and not an 'enslaved' roman province. They were still allowed to follow their jewish customs during a census. There might have been some opposition to it, but someone like Joazar might have diffused it from becoming a violent revolt.

My point is - does the present available data conclusively negate a plausible occurrence of an earlier census?

and of course, Antiquites book 17 covers the previous 14 years and doesn't mention any census.

I haven't verified but I think Antiquities Book 18 covers the next 30 odd years. Does josephus cover any other census or was this 6AD census the only one he wrote? If this is the only one he wrote, was this the only census in judea or were there more?

So this again begs the question - was josephus trying to record censuses or record major events? He might have recorded just this one census because it was before a major event, namely the revolt that eventually led to the destruction of the temple. (I'm assuming josephus recorded just this one roman census in judea, correct me if i'm wrong)

 

[logical bob]

OK, perhaps you have a point. Perhaps Josephus wouldn't record a census that ran smoothly and didn't ruffle any feathers. Only the one census is covered in Antiquities 18 and I don't know if there is any evidence elsewhere for later censuses.

Two other methods of tax in the Antiquites are in book 14 (44 BC I think):
"Cassius came from Rome into Syria, in order to receive the camp at Apameia... He then went over the cities, and got together weapons and soldiers, and laid great taxes upon those cities; and he chiefly oppressed Judaea, and exacted of it seven hundred talents: but Antipater... divided the collection of that sum, and appointed his two sons to gather it."

and book 17 (AD 4, following the death of Herod)
"Some made a clamour that he (Archaelaus, the king) would ease them of some of their annual payments."

These suggest that the king determined what taxes were paid by people in Judea and that Roman authorities received payments from the king but didn't concern themselves with how the money was gathered.

But of course the census described by Luke was anything but smooth. It required everyone to travel to the home town of whichever of the 12 tribes they belonged to. This would have been a huge upheaval. Leaving aside the question of why on earth the Romans would do such a thing, and the total lack of evidence to say that they did, Josephus would surely have found that an event worth recording.

We can say with confidence that it wasn’t standard Roman practice to send people to their ancestral homes for a census. Someone, somewhere, would have recorded that but there’s nothing. So if it happened in Judea it would have been highly unusual, and again something Josephus would have mentioned. And he gives us no reason to think it happened in the census of AD 6.

 

[logical bob]

… is there any actual contradicting evidence? If not, doesn't this break down into an 'argument from silence' and such arguments can work both ways.

A word on the “argument from silence.†While we discuss the finer points of Josephus let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture.

For Luke’s account to be true, and not to contradict Matthew’s, we need at least the following to be true.

1. A Roman census to be carried out in a client kingdom, although there is no evidence that such a thing ever happened anywhere despite apologists going to considerable lengths to find an example.
2. A census to require the whole population to be registered not where they lived but in the home of their distant ancestors, although there is no evidence of this ever happening anywhere and obvious practical reasons why this is a bad way to do a census. How can you tax people if you don’t know where they live?
3. Quirinius to be governor of Syria in the years prior to 4 BC, although we know that the governor at the time was Publius Quinctilius Varus and have strong evidence that Quirinius was governing a city and fighting a war in distant Asia Minor at the time. Set against this we have no evidence at all to suggest that he was governor of Syria.
4. This census, unprecedented for the reasons in 1 and 2, to be deemed not worth recording by a historian writing a detailed account of Jewish history in the period when it happened.

And yet, if I say that this seems unlikely you call that an argument from silence. That’s not how history works. If you make the positive claim that the above things happened then the onus is on you to provide some evidence. And all you have to deal with all these problems is an anonymous document written in an unknown place some 90+ years after the event whose concerns are theological rather than historical.

Based on our previous discussion, this isn’t going to pose you much difficulty. These difficulties pale into total insignificance next to those facing the Flood, but you believe that because the Bible says so. For all your pretence of “give me the sources, let me evaluate the evidence,†you’re in a situation where you can’t lose. If you were to find some evidence that supported your view you’d use it. If you can’t find anything you’ll fall back on pure belief like you do with the Flood and creation. It’s frustrating. You shouldn’t pretend to be engaged in rational discussion if reason and evidence can’t sway you.

 

[yepimonfire]

Not an error, but it'll make you think.

http://deoxy.org/manna.htm

bit late to post this but there are several places in the bible that forbid the use of pharmikia (conscious altering plants) or potions, the fact this website starts off saying it doesent, makes the whole article fallible.

 

[seekandlisten]

Not an error, but it'll make you think.

http://deoxy.org/manna.htm

bit late to post this but there are several places in the bible that forbid the use of pharmikia (conscious altering plants) or potions, the fact this website starts off saying it doesent, makes the whole article fallible.

Care to back up this claim with supporting evidence of these 'several places'.

Edited Note: I realize this is off topic and will only lead to straying even further so if you could just pm me the passages that support this claim I would appreciate it, thanks.

 

[Ed the Ned]

It’s frustrating. You shouldn’t pretend to be engaged in rational discussion if reason and evidence can’t sway you.

Forum rules: No promoting of other religions icluding Atheism??

Sorry Moderators! It had to be said.

Logical Bob.To a Christian the Bible is rational and is the Truth. Science comes second. So to say someone is pretending to have rational discussion on a CHRISTIAN forum. He will always accept the Bible first. There is no pretence in that, and if it was your objective to sway Christians in your anti-thiest ways. You chose the wrong web site.

 

[seekandlisten]

It’s frustrating. You shouldn’t pretend to be engaged in rational discussion if reason and evidence can’t sway you.

Forum rules: No promoting of other religions icluding Atheism??

Sorry Moderators! It had to be said.

Logical Bob.To a Christian the Bible is rational and is the Truth. Science comes second. So to say someone is pretending to have rational discussion on a CHRISTIAN forum. He will always accept the Bible first. There is no pretence in that, and if it was your objective to sway Christians in your anti-thiest ways. You chose the wrong web site.

Show me where he promoted Athiesm? The opening post, posted by a Christian, asked this:

Christian/atheist debates often start with both of the participants claiming the other side has the onus of proving the other wrong. However, since you've decided to engage Christians on a Christian website, I don't think it's unreasonable to put this onus on you.

Bob, being an athiest, took up this challenge that the 'onus was on him' to provide evidence in regards to errors in the bible. So he does his research and presents evidence supporting his position. I don't think it's asking too much that the other side of the argument present evidence as well, seeing as bob did his part in response to the 'onus being put on him'. If after bob goes through the work of finding evidence and research to back his claims to only be met with 'well the bible says so' I can see how it's frustrating as the Christian is not putting any effort into their argument, just say that it's your belief in the first place without asking for the evidence against it if you are just going to reject it. If evidence doesn't support it well claim it to be simply a belief of yours that you hold on faith, bob has been respectful of Christian beliefs in the posts I've seen so I don't think he would have a problem. In reality, does your faith fall apart if a census didn't happen? Why so defensive of someone's presentation of evidence showing a possible error in the bible, when asked by a Christian, and then saying it somehow promotes Athiesm?

 

[Mike]

In defense of Ed, this was on me. I put it out there and it was probably a mistake on my part. Not because I fear the Bible inadequate to defend itself, but I am inadequate to do so. By opening such a wide range of debate, I exposed myself to areas that I'm unprepared to address. In discussing the census, I'm not versed enough to pour over all the minutia of evidence on either side.

When I say I feel L Bob's evidence does not prove the said error, he states that the overwhelming facts suggest that I should be open to the preponderance and take that hop. When I don't agree to, he claims I'm not being reasonable. We resolved to move on on good terms. I believe we are.

I am of the faith and belief that the Bible is without error. So in effect, I am the juror who needs evidence beyond a doubt to convict it as wrong. Admitting my bias, I am not convinced.

My regrets to Christians and atheists if the challenge was one that would lead nowhere.