Can an Atheist Prove Any Errors in the Bible?

[seekandlisten]

In light of your post mjjcb, I apologize for jumping to conclusions. And to Ed, don't take my comment personal I was just stating my observance of this thread. I found it interesting nothing more nothing less. I know many people who hold the bible to be 'infallible' and I'm fine with that I just don't hold the same opinion.

cheers

 

[Ed the Ned]

Show me where he promoted Athiesm?

- seek and listen

I'll defend my statement that he promotes atheism. Logical Bob, I admit, has not openly and come out to convert others into atheism and yes in general has respected the forum rules. but he has crossed the line a few times. In the quote I posted last time. I will include the full paragraph this time.

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.

I find the comments above not only ridicule the Bible but also our faith. If I believe the Bible is the Truth, then I cannot disect and decide what I want to believe and what I dont. I believe in God the Creator, I believe that God sent a flood. I believe in the ark.

The fact that logical Bob is fustrated is that he cannot understand that as Christians we believe in the Bible first, before science. Why does he want to sway us?. If he believe rational discussion is meant to sway then what is he doing on a Christian forum? His introduction said he wanted to learn more about Christians. Not sway us with his rational discussion.

I have taken the time to visit Richard Dawkins forum. And all I found was anti-theists not even atheists. It istruly a I hate Christians forum. Richard Dawkins has a Haiti help initaitive, he calls it "Non believers giving aid" Why?? Why not "Richard Dawkins Aid initiative" why "non believers" Why do atheist spend so much time trying to find error in the Bible? Why do atheist call themselves non-christian long before they call themselves non-hindu or non-islam or non-buddah. Is logical bob on an islam forum making these comments about Allah and the Koran?

To end off. It is clear that Logical Bob (please pm me if you have issues) believes that rational discussion can only occur when evidence is presented and a person is to sway towards believing the evidence presented. He is an atheist and wants rational discussion. ie to sway us with his evidence.

 

[logical bob]

Ed, I am again not ridiculing your faith. The comments of mine you quoted there are very well illustrated by what you said in another thread here, here and here.

In the first two posts you appeared to be engaging in logical, evidence based discussion. In the first you said that it was illogical to think a random process to give rise to non-random results. In the second you discussed the shapes of squid, turtles and other creatures, using them as evidence to counter what I was saying. Then in the third post

I have come to a decision to accept the seven literal day creation. This I know sounds strange to you. I cannot give you scientific evidence why I have made that decision. Its more a spiritual decision I have taken in my walk with God. That is something you cannot debate or I cannot explain. You can shove as much "scientific" evidence of biogenisis theory in my face, it wont change my decision. I am being honest and open about that.

As I said to you then, I respect that viewpoint and I agree that debating with it is futile. I have never mocked or ridiculed that viewpoint on this forum. But you don’t stick to it consistently. If you did, you wouldn’t have tried logic and evidence in the earlier posts, since you clearly state that they don’t matter to you.

You can’t have it both ways. If you reject the very idea of reason, logic and evidence then don’t try to engage in that kind of discussion.

I made these points to ivdavid thinking of what he’d said here.

Now, I see Jesus referring to Old Testament Scripture often and He doesn't seem to find any fault with any part of it. He brings in new revelation that adds to it and in some places, appeals to what is written in the Scriptures for the people to accept Him as the Messiah. Jesus, being the Son of God, had perfect opportunity to refute or edit the Scriptures if He wanted it to be changed. In fact, He does the opposite - He quotes them without fail. He even quotes Jonah in the belly of the fish making it quite clear that this literally did happen and was not some form of legend or myth. If Jesus considered them literally, I have no reason not to do so. And if this were how the Old Testament Scriptures were considered, this is how the New Testament Scriptures should be considered.

I see no other reason required to doubt the infallibility or the literal interpretation of the Bible.

It seems to me that he’s doing the same thing. He may want to read Josephus and examine my sources but at the end of the day he has nothing at stake because no source will dent his belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, guaranteed by the word of Christ.

If you guys will be consistent about your rejection of the value of evidence then I will respect your faith and find I have very little to say to you. It frustrates me when you play at evidence in case it works for you, knowing that you’re not committed to the result of the discussion.

Regarding your other points, the OP asked for atheists to try to prove errors in the Bible. I really can’t see how it’s disrespectful to answer, but seekandlisten has covered all of that.

I’m not a member of an Islamic forum because I would find discussion there difficult. I live in a society where Christianity is the major religious influence and I know a little bit about Christianity, the Bible and the relevant history. I certainly don’t have the knowledge to discuss the Koran in the way I’m discussing the Bible on this forum. That doesn’t dent the fact I’m every bit as much a non-Muslim as I am a non-Christian.

If you’d taken the time to follow my posting history at RDF you’d have found I often spoke out against the consensus view that Christianity is inherently irrational and always unscientific. The more I encounter this “evidence won’t change my decision†viewpoint on this forum the more I come to realise that I was probably wrong.

Any time you think I am in breach of the forum rules don't hesistate to hit that report button and see if a moderator agrees with you. Frankly I'm starting to find your extreme sensitivity rather tiring.

 

[Ed the Ned]

I'll defend my statement that he promotes atheism. Logical Bob, I admit, has not openly and come out to convert others into atheism and yes in general has respected the forum rules.

This is my veiwpoint regarding my your postings and although it might seem like it, I am not being over sensistive. I am a rambler when I speak and sometime try and explain myself in to many words. When a shorter version might come to the point a little quicker. This has clearly been the case with my last post.

I did not say that science in rubbish, or not needed or has no place in the Bible or that it scientific observation cannot be used in discussion. I stated that the Bible would come first to me and I would first draw my conclusions according to Gods Word. ie. If Jonah was in a whale for 3 days then he was in a whale. Whether that can be proven or not does not matter to me. This is Gods creation, if he allowed it, He doesn't have to explain it. I also accept that certain Biblical translations are in error, does that mean the original writing and the Bible is in error - No. Does every Christian draw the same conclusion from every text in the Bible, No. There are so many different teachings and doctrine in the Christian world its frightening. I am not denying that. Did Christ and the apostles warn us about this? Yes.
What we are seeing in the world today was fortold by Christ himself. He did't paint this pretty picture of things to come.
I do think we should look at History to compliment the Bible, it is the only religous book that has geographical proof in it.
I do not have an issue with an a person not believing in God, Christ etc. Its that persons choice. My brothers are both atheists. They respect my decision and I respect theirs.
Logical Bob every comment you have made about the Bible and the inaccuracy you have mentioned. I have read into it and I am trying to understand it myself. The Micah and the Assyrian is still on my study desk. (it has helped me understand the time period) Lukes account of Christ birth I have looked into and have not drawn to any conclusion yet. I am a computer teacher and my time is limited.

So your questions has not gone unnoticed. It is only certain comments you make that get me upset. I personally do not believe that rational discussion means anyone needs to be swayed in any direction. A doctor tells his patient he has three weeks to live. Medical facts prove it. That was ten years ago. How many times do we hear that story.

 

[logical bob]

Logical Bob every comment you have made about the Bible and the inaccuracy you have mentioned. I have read into it and I am trying to understand it myself. The Micah and the Assyrian is still on my study desk. (it has helped me understand the time period) Lukes account of Christ birth I have looked into and have not drawn to any conclusion yet... So your questions has not gone unnoticed.

Oh well, thanks for taking an interest in what I've had to say, whatever you ultimately decide you think of it.

 

[ivdavid]

Logical bob, you've kept me quite busy the last few days. And thanks to you, I've gained a lot of knowledge from history. But I'd like to clarify my intent before we continue this discussion...

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.

That is pretty scathing. I wasn't pretending at all - I really did want to read the sources from which you derived your conclusions. And I've never pretended to be 'unbiased' in the sense you mean - I do operate with the starting evidence of God being the absolute truth and everything else follows that. And you're right - I don't need 'evidence' to 'prove' God just as I don't need any witnesses or evidences to prove - say, my brother's existence (I speak personally of just me here) but I am curious to know how facts and evidences are interpreted one way or the other. It is out of such curiosity that I joined this discussion and intend to continue it. Ed the Ned too has given perspective earlier.

And not every rational discussion has to reach a single concrete conclusion. I would respect your end conclusion whatever it is. I only request you do the same. I'm not debating you...so where's the question of you feeling frustrated if I don't see things the way you do? I feel there are multiple possibilities to a single scenario construction and though I'm absolutely convinced about the conclusion, I still am interested in exploring all such theories that explain the sequence to that conclusion. I admit I'm not well-versed with history or science or anything for that matter - and when I can't see a 'proved' path to the end conclusion that I hold, I'd say so - that I don't know yet how it could be true, just that i know it is true. There, the discussion ends with a good exchange of views - just like the very good one we had earlier. If this is fine with you, I would like to take this discussion further...

These are the main points you raised.

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.

Is this the only way of looking at what might have happened? Work with me and entertain other possibilities...

Point 1:
There is no evidence of a Roman census for taxation in a client kingdom. I agree. Does this actually rule out that there could have been one nonetheless and that we've not discovered the evidence yet? As I said earlier, Josephus not recording it could very well be because he didn't find it worth reporting. But I don't intend to present this as an alternative - I'm only pointing out the difference between a concrete direct contradiction against Luke vs an inferred contradiction against him.

While we see no reason for Rome to have conducted a census for taxation in a client kingdom, there is absolutely every chance that Rome could have decreed a census for something else - perhaps to pledge allegiance to the Emperor. These types of censuses would cover even client kingdoms - they do have to obey the decree as loyal subjects. This is not to say that Rome takes over the reigns completely - it could have been decreed and overseen by Rome while being conducted by the client kingdom's rulers according to the client kingdom's rules and customs.

Point 2:
This first census isn't anything like the second census in 6 AD - so drawing direct comparisons may not be the right way to go about it. The first census was not conducted by Rome - it was decreed and overseen by Rome but in all likelihood conducted according to the customs of the jews by the jewish king. And jewish customs dictated that each were to enroll himself in his native town according to his tribe. And Josephus clearly tells us that the client kingdom of Judea was allowed to follow its customs both by Julius caesar and by Augustus caesar.

The second point here still rests on the assumption that this was a census for taxation which may not be the case. It may have been a census or enrollment of a pledge of allegiance for which every subject under the empire might have been asked to be enrolled. In Judea, this enrollment would be taken according to tribes. Even if it were for taxation, jewish customs would require the jews to enroll or give account of his ancestral properties in his ancestral town according to tribe. This custom is not something unique for a jew to wonder and take special note of - it's part of their age-long way of doing things. May seem strange to us - apparently not so for them.

I have hereby demonstrated to them that we have formerly been in great esteem, and have not been prohibited by those governors we were under from keeping any of the laws of our forefathers; nay, that we have been supported by them, while we followed our own religion, and the worship we paid to God............As for our customs there is no nation which always makes use of the same, and in every city almost we meet with them different from one another;

Point 3:
Here I presume the 4 BC deadline is on account of Herod's death. But I've come across so much conflicting 'evidence' on the year of Herod's death. I'll try and elaborate on this in a later post but I don't think Herod died in 4 BC. I'm more convinced with the 1 BC date that other historians propose.

But regarding Quirinius, I don't see where it's mentioned that he was the official governor of Syria. Luke's rendering of Quirinius' office seems to be very general. The greek word hegemon is used instead of the official word for governor - legatos. So Quirinius could just be a specially appointed ruler in Syria, most probably to oversee the census among other things.

about which there was a hearing before Saturninus and Volumnius, who were then the presidents of Syria.

Note the way Josephus refers to two presidents in Syria at the same time (he continues to do so through the rest of Book 16) - but we know only one of them was the official president/governor. The same could be true in the case of Quirinius.

And Quirinius needs to have been placed as this special governor only for a minimum of 1 year to complete overseeing the census - Anyway, the window placed for his wars with the Homonadensians doesn't seem to contradict his conducting the census in Judea. I couldn't find the 3 BC date for Quirinius receiving his triumph. If this date has been inferred from some other date, then we must check the veracity of that source date because I get the feeling that a lot of years attributed to many people around that dark decade (6BC to 4AD) has stemmed from one or two assumed dates - eg. the year of death of Herod. Now if this source date itself is being questioned, then entirely different dates can be reconstructed based on various interpretations of this source date. So we must tread carefully where we don't have conclusive concrete facts.

Point 4:
Again, in light of the new considerations of points 1 and 2, Josephus would not have seen a census conducted by Herod according to Judean customs where people have to get enrolled according to tribe as something startling to record.


I don't claim to have zeroed in on exactly what happened but this is just a model/explanation of how things could have happened according to the Bible. The exact sequence can be determined only through more archeological discoveries. Anyway, my present interpretation is this -

Augustus Caesar decreed a census to be taken throughout the Roman Empire including the client kingdoms of Judea. This is not mainly for taxation though it could have some future use but mainly for enrollment of subjects for informative purposes or for pledging allegiance to the Emperor. This census was conducted by Rome in all its provinces but in client kingdoms, their respective rulers was allowed to conduct them according to their customs. Quirinius was not the official governor of Syria but a specially appointed ruler/president to oversee the census in Judea and maybe surrounding parts. Most of the dates that are accepted traditionally stem from a few contested source dates and hence a single change in source dates could alter a lot of history. Herod didn't die in 4 BC. The census might have taken place in 4/3 BC.

Let this not turn into a debate. Point out the weak links and we'll try discussing them. I definitely am not changing my conclusions derived from the Bible but I could change my stance on what exactly happened back then - I might revise my interpretation or I might back out saying - I don't know how, I just know it is. That isn't an argumentative point and this should by no means frustrate you. I'm looking forward to a good discussion for the sake of sharing knowledge and viewpoints and not to enforce doctrines dogmatically.

 

[logical bob]

Hi David, and thanks for a comprehensive response. I'll get back to you, but as you appreciate the subject matter is quite complex and I have a lot going on in real life just now.

Please bear with me.

 

[logical bob]

OK then. Let’s avoid discussing faith and evidence for the moment and concentrate on the history.

Dating the death of Herod the Great
Antiquities 17 tells us that Herod died after a lunar eclipse (17.6.4) and before Passover (17.9.3). In 4 BC there was a lunar eclipse 29 days before Passover. The next was in 1 BC. Source.

On Herod’s death, his kingdom was divided up between his sons. One portion went to Herod Philip II, known as Philip the Tetrarch. According to Antiquities 17.8.1 this was arranged on Herod’s deathbed, meaning Philip wasn’t Tetrarch prior to Herod’s death. Antiquities 18.4.6 says that Philip died after a reign of 37 years in the 20th year of Tiberius. Dates for the reigns of emperors are pretty solid, and we know that year was AD 33/34, which puts the start of Philip’s tetrarchy in 4/3 BC. Combined with the eclipse, I think that means we have to go for March in 4 BC as the date of Herod’s death.

Census of the whole empire
I’d forgotten that Luke states the census was part of one that took in the whole empire. You suggest that in Judea this might have been sufficiently routine that Josephus didn’t think it noteworthy. But a census of the whole empire must, at a minimum, include the city of Rome itself. Rome had a census 3 times in the reign of Augustus in 28 BC, 8 BC and AD 14. Source. 8 BC is therefore your only plausible date. You can perhaps claim that a census of Judea might be unremarkable to Josephus. I think claiming that Rome had a census which went unrecorded, given the comprehensive data we do have, is pushing it too far.

Note that this means that the census of Quirinius in AD 6 was, as Josephus says, an initial census of new territory and not part of an empire-wide census.

If Jesus was born in 8 BC then he was already 33 when Pontius Pilate became procurator of Judea in AD 26. This would mean either the traditional view of how old Jesus was or the date of the crucifixion would have to shift a bit.

The whereabouts of Quirinius
I can’t give you a link to a primary source on Quirinius’ triumph. Wikipedia references Justin K. Hardin, Galatians and the Imperial Cult, (Mohr Siebeck, 2008) page 56 but I don’t have this book.

I haven’t yet seen a source that puts the Homonodensian war anywhere other than 6/5 – 3 BC. The most detailed source I’ve got is here.

I still think this puts Quirinius very much in Asia Minor and very busy in the last years of Herod’s reign. Appointing him to carry out a census in Judea at this time would be like sending the head of US operation in Afghanistan to organise an election in Iraq.

Anyway, that’s not a comprehensive response to everything you raised, but it’s something.

 

[ivdavid]

Use this link to access Josephus Antiquities by book number, chapter number, paragraph number
Josephus

And you needn't give me sources for each and everything. I'm only requesting you to check it yourself for your own verification. I'll take your word for it.

Dating the death of Herod the Great
Antiquities 17 tells us that Herod died after a lunar eclipse (17.6.4) and before Passover (17.9.3). In 4 BC there was a lunar eclipse 29 days before Passover. The next was in 1 BC. Source.

I've gone through this. And I've come across several points that put me off.

Point 1:
This is the only text directly used to determine the year of death of Herod.
Antiquities 17.8.1
When he had done these things, he died, the fifth day after he had caused Antipater to be slain; having reigned, since he had procured Antigonus to be slain, thirty-four years; but since he had been declared king by the Romans, thirty-seven

Now Antigonus was slain after the siege of the Jerusalem temple which happened in 37 BC according to Josephus' consular dating. So, 34 years from there lands in 3BC.
He was declared king by the Romans in 40BC according to Josephus' consular dating. 37 years from then places it again in 3BC.
So, 3BC date has been stretched to meet the 4BC eclipse - is it allowed?
The reason given for the stretch seems to be that Josephus might have counted regnal years ie Herod might have reigned 36 complete years till 4BC end according to Nisan calendar (approx March 29) and would have entered 37th regnal year but would have died in the first few days of the new year (37th) before the passover (approx april 11) but after the eclipse(march 12/13) in 4BC. But then Josephus' language would have indicated that. In the above passage, josephus seems to indicate clearly that Herod had reigned 34 years since Antigonus' death - seems like complete years to me and not regnal years. An example of how Josephus indicates regnal counting is seen here -

Antiquities 15.10.3
Now when Herod had already reigned seventeen years, Caesar came into Syria… …

Followed immediately by,
Antiquities 15.11.1
And now Herod, in the eighteenth year of his reign, and after the acts already mentioned, undertook a very great work, that is, to build of himself the temple of God,


And then again, Josephus says this regarding Herod's siege of Jerusalem after which Antigonus was slain from which the 34 year count should begin.
Antiquities 14.16.4
This destruction befell the city of Jerusalem when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls of Rome 30 on the hundred eighty and fifth olympiad, on the third month, on the solemnity of the fast, as if a periodical revolution of calamities had returned since that which befell the Jews under Pompey; for the Jews were taken by him on the same day, and this was after twenty-seven years' time.

Pompey's siege of Jerusalem took place in 63 BC and 27 years after that to the same day places it in 36BC. After this comes Antigonus' death after which 34 years count takes us to 2BC !! So, clearly Josephus has made some chronological error either for want of sources or negligence but can we ascertain which facts are true and which aren't?


Now compare another chronological error -
Antiquities 14.9.2
And seeing that Hyrcanus was of a slow and slothful temper, he made Phasaelus, his eldest son, governor of Jerusalem, and of the places that were about it, but committed Galilee to Herod, his next son, who was then a very young man, for he was but fifteen years of age

This is placed in the year of Syrian Governor Sextus Julius Caesar (47/46 BC)

But at the time of Herod's death, he's aged about 70. You can do the math.
Antiquities 17.6.1
Now Herod's ambassadors made haste to Rome….
for he was about the seventieth year of his age

I'll continue in the next post....

 

[ivdavid]

...continuing,

So, we'll have to be wary of Josephus. I feel he was more focussed on recording the content of what happened rather than when exactly it happened. Or he might have stumbled across conflicting sources and he may have reconciled wrongly. Whatever it is, we've got to tread carefully.

Point 2:

Antiquities 17 tells us that Herod died after a lunar eclipse (17.6.4) and before Passover (17.9.3). In 4 BC there was a lunar eclipse 29 days before Passover. The next was in 1 BC. Source.

The time period of 29 days between eclipse and passover poses a problem. All activities recorded between Antiquities 17.6.5 and 17.9.2 have to occur in those 29 days which seems a tight stretch by itself. But consider this -

Antiquities 17.8.3
So they went eight furlongs to Herodium; for there by his own command he was to be buried. And thus did Herod end his life.
There is a footnote at the end of this page. Footnote 12 :
[ At eight stadia or furlongs a-day, as here, Herod's funeral, conducted to Herodium, which lay at the distance from Jericho, where he died, of 200 stadia or furlongs, Of the War, B. 1. ch. 33. sect. 9, must have taken up no less than twenty-five days.]

Add to this,
Antiquities 17.8.4
Now Archelaus paid him so much respect, as to continue his mourning till the seventh day; for so many days are appointed for it by the law of our fathers

Something is wrong. How do we decide what is?


Point 3:

This is what I saw in wikipedia. I couldn't see any matching source references but this is open for interpretation.
Wikipedia – Antipater, son of Herod
However, in 5 BC Antipater was brought before Publius Quinctilius Varus, then Roman governor of Syria, charged with the intended murder of his father Herod. Antipater was found guilty by Varus; however, due to Antipater's high rank, it was necessary for Caesar Augustus to approve of the recommended sentence of death. After the guilty verdict, Antipater's position as exclusive successor was removed and granted to Herod Antipas. Once the sentence had approval from Augustus in 4 BC, Antipater was then executed.

Now, the exact passage from josephus is this -
Antiquities 17.5.2
Now Quintilius Varus was at this time at Jerusalem, being sent to succeed Saturninus as president of Syria, and was come as an assessor to Herod, who had desired his advice in his present affairs; and as they were sitting together, Antipater came upon them, without knowing any thing of the matter; so he came into the palace clothed in purple.

Antipater was returning after perhaps a little over 7 months(17.4.3) since sailing to Rome. Saturninus was governor of Syria when Antipater left. Saturninus was the one who sent Antipater, Sylleus and some people to witness against Sylleus(17.3.2) Now even if we stretch Antipater's stay at Rome by a few more months, it becomes really difficult to accommodate Saturninus as governor while Antipater left and Varus as governor when Antipater returns. This is between (17.3.2) and (17.5.2) which seems to be about 7 months.

But Varus clearly held governorship between 6BC and 4BC as shown by coins. There's no reason to suspect that governors antedated their reigns - only emperors and kings did that usually. So, either Antipater stayed a really long time in Rome, which the passage doesn't indicate or Herod died around 6BC!!!

I know I'm throwing up more problems than solving. But that's the result of the dark decade....

Will continue in next post....

 

[logical bob]

I'm interupting you in mid-flow here - sorry. But I wouldn't take issue with what you're saying. There certainly are difficulties in Josephus, as you've shown. I'm sure you have more up your sleeve.

I have no wish to say that every word Jospehus wrote is absolute truth. It would be a strange thing for me to argue that the New Testament is not inerrant and support that by claiming Josephus was. We have to be aware of the risk of error, bias and problems in manuscript transmission in all ancient sources. Josephus is the best source we have because the people who wrote ancient history weren't generally interested in a backwater like Judea. We have to work with what we've got, but I'm happy to concede that we can't fix dates like the death of Herod with total precision.

This brings me to the problems of method I passed over in my last post. Ancient history isn't in the business of absolute proof. Just about the only place you'll find absolute proof is in mathematics. A historian looks for evidence to see what we can reasonably deduce, accepting that we can't expect total certainty and that not all questions can be answered. In ancient history the sources are very few.

At this point though, while the historian looks for evidence, I think you may be looking for gaps in the evidence. You aren't trying to build evidential support for your thesis, but to establish that your thesis can't be disproved. Way back in the OP, mjccb stated that he wouldn't be swayed by arguments on the absense of evidence. That's why I chose the census of Quirinius as my example. I think the following are as reliable as just about any statements in ancient history.

1. Quirnius wasn't in Syria during the latter reign of Herod, and we have a good idea what he was doing.
2. Census wasn't carried out in client kingdoms.
3. Census didn't require relocation as described in Luke.

Can anyone prove that Quirinius didn't somehow juggle his duties in Asia Minor with organising the Judean part of an unprecedented empire-wide non-taxing census including client kingdoms which somehow escaped being recorded anywhere? No. Can anyone prove that Julius Caesar didn't combine his role as dictator with travelling to Babylon to study in secret to become a Zoroastrian holy man and that no sources mention this? No. Can anyone prove that Jesus didn't have a child by Mary Magdelene, who later moved to France and gave rise to the Merovingian dynasty? No. Is there any reason to think that any of these things are true? No.

I can't disprove your theory, I can only try to show that it has no support and flies in the face of all the evidence that we do have.

When I joined the thread I nearly went with the Exodus as my example instead. It seems unlikely that that every first born in Egypt should die on the same night without there being some evidence. You'd see a point in time when far more tombs were built, or a rationalisation of this disaster in terms of Egyptian belief systems. Egypt left the most comprehensive record of any ancient civilisation, yet we see nothing, not even any indication that they used foreign slave populations in this way. The movement of the Israelites into Canaan would show up in the archaeological record the way that migrations do. Jericho would have a destruction layer at one of the possible dates. But mjjcb would have replied, and I think you would have agreed, that maybe we just haven't found the evidence yet, that I can't disprove anything.

And you'd both be right. But see what a modest achievement this is. Surely if you contend something happened you should try to find something to indicate that it did, not to place it so that we can't absolutely prove that it didn't even though it looks like the remotest of possibilities. Even apologists like William Ramsay were trying to offer some evidence for their beliefs, however tenuous the results.

Please don't take this as scathing - I think I'm being quite measured and I'm not doing the frustration thing. And I suppose I may be prejudging your forthcoming posts, which isn't my intention. I will read them with interest.

 

[Servant John]

This is unrelated to the discussion at hand but I thought I would comment anyways.

I respect the fact that the discussion here has been mostly civil between the believer and atheist. Far too often, it quickly degrades into a name calling match.

I'm not an expert on the census process of ancient Rome. Nor do I care to be. Bottom line, the gospel account does not date it. Therefore, I won't lose any sleep if it's 4/5 or 8/10 or whatever. It really is splitting hairs.

Long ago I conceded the fact that I would lose my mind if I tried to prove every verse of scripture with all the latest archaeological, historical, and scientific data. As much as we embrace science and history in the western world and believe those things are rock solid truth, in reality, they are not. 50 years from now, new discoveries will be made, scientific theories modified, and new archaeological evidence discovered that will modify what we believe is "the truth" today. I come from a scientific background and in my career I have seen it first hand.

If we live our lives only believing what can be measured in a test tube, we will be chasing shadows forever as science is constantly evolving. I for one, do believe in absolute truth and not the sliding scale of morality as many want to embrace to justify their own sin and poor choices.

I've seen way too many people (including myself) completely change their life from a path of destruction to one of triumphant living with the truths of the bible to think it more than just "wishful thinking" or "feel good" ideas. Only God can change man. I've been through every kind of secular counseling and "self help" (and failing) before coming to the Lord.

Some things in the bible can never be proven with 100% certainty. But the vast majority that can be proven, gives me enough confidence and faith to accept those minor details that we can never completely know. If one chooses to reject the gospel message because they are convinced in their mind that one tiny piece of scripture can be called into doubt, well, I feel sorry for such a person that they can't see the forest for the trees.

My .02

 

[Ed the Ned]

I think the way you have put things servant John sums it up for me, but I do find it interesting to examine those areas. in this very thread the topic came up about Micah and the Assyrian and in studying the Bible I have a greater appreciation for the message the early prophets had for the people of the time and for us now. I believe that so much Bible prophecy has already been proven that if an early prophecy about Christ has not yet happened, it is still to come. Jesus Christ lives!

 

[kismetshaloam]

So at the risk of getting in trouble, because when I joined the rules I read didn't say any of the things about not promotion of other beliefs, or such- but I'd throw out that the bible in itself is doubtable if any events are only referenced in the bible.

Without other sources, than the event regardless of what it is, or where it is found, is not entirely credible. I personally have nothing against the bible and am of the opinion that if you believe and feel it spiritually than by all means there is nothing wrong with that, however as a writer and historian any source that cannot be cross referenced from a historical point of view becomes doubtable. The bible is also very biased, which is fine I wouldn't consider it's purpose to be objective about history- so for that reason I don't find it that credible in that way. As a spiritual resources it's credible if you don't take it literally.

I hope this is okay, I'm confused as to how the rules apply, because I joined assuming I could discuss for the purpose of learning with people and be allowed to share all my views rationally. I would assume people can be mature and make choices for themselves what they want to believe so that's why I was a bit suprised by the rules. But anyways, my point just being that nothing I'm saying is intended to be offensive, and isn't meant as a critiscms to the bible per se, it's just my thoughts.

 

[logical bob]

Without other sources, than the event regardless of what it is, or where it is found, is not entirely credible... as a writer and historian any source that cannot be cross referenced from a historical point of view becomes doubtable. The bible is also very biased, which is fine I wouldn't consider it's purpose to be objective about history- so for that reason I don't find it that credible in that way. As a spiritual resources it's credible if you don't take it literally.

I don't think you should give the Bible a harder time than you'd give other ancient writings. Sometimes in ancient history there is only one written source and we can't cross reference it. We can't reference much of Thucydides' Peloponesian War against anything else apart from inscriptions and archaeological evidence. Our knowledge of the Graeco-Persian War of 480BC is largely based on Herodotus. We have nothing to check that against and, even worse, the same book goes on about African tribes who have no heads and says that Northern Europe is uninhabitable because of bees.

All writings are biased and you have to take the bias of the author into account. History is usually written by the winning side.

What I'm pointing out in this thread is a situation where a biblical narrative is contradicted by other evidence. Surviving sources are so few that you can't expect independent corroboration of every point.

 

[ChattyMute]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk

Please read the description as well, and feel free to look up the bible verses listed in the video.