Can an Atheist Prove Any Errors in the Bible?

[Mike]

Neither side will ever give absolute proof of God's existence. I'd like to keep the focus on this thread to inaccuracies of the Bible. And I'd like to stay away from miraculous events and the one-time events that can't be reproduced today or proven not to have occurred.

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.

your reaction might be to start with the first chapter and claim it is wrong from the start evidenced by proof of evolution. You can say this is proven all you want, but it is still a theory. You can say the preponderance of evidence supports your theory, but it is a "theory" that many would reject it and say otherwise.

So, sticking to people, places, landmarks, historical events, what can you claim to have been proven wrong? And the absence of proof affirming can not be used to achieve this as archeologists have unearthed sites that were once thought not to exist. Regrets here if this has been discussed. I searched, but didn't find anything to this point.

 

[happyjoy]

Neither side will ever give absolute proof of God's existence. I'd like to keep the focus on this thread to inaccuracies of the Bible. And I'd like to stay away from miraculous events and the one-time events that can't be reproduced today or proven not to have occurred.

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.

your reaction might be to start with the first chapter and claim it is wrong from the start evidenced by proof of evolution. You can say this is proven all you want, but it is still a theory. You can say the preponderance of evidence supports your theory, but it is a "theory" that many would reject it and say otherwise.

So, sticking to people, places, landmarks, historical events, what can you claim to have been proven wrong? And the absence of proof affirming can not be used to achieve this as archeologists have unearthed sites that were once thought not to exist. Regrets here if this has been discussed. I searched, but didn't find anything to this point.

How about the tower of Babel?

I'm not an atheist, but want to hear your opinion of it.

 

[Mike]

OK, I don't know if you expected a reply from me, but I'll make this exception, because it was so easy to find.

http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html

From this point, I would ask atheists to pose the issues. Obviously, I can only "ask" this. I'm of the belief that nothing has been PROVEN inaccurate by atheists, archeologists or historians. Perhaps the atheist would say that the limitations ham string them too much to which I say, if you base your opinion that the Bible is full of inaccuracies on the sciences, something should have been proven wrong to solidify your concrete dismissal.

Neither side will ever give absolute proof of God's existence. I'd like to keep the focus on this thread to inaccuracies of the Bible. And I'd like to stay away from miraculous events and the one-time events that can't be reproduced today or proven not to have occurred.

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.

your reaction might be to start with the first chapter and claim it is wrong from the start evidenced by proof of evolution. You can say this is proven all you want, but it is still a theory. You can say the preponderance of evidence supports your theory, but it is a "theory" that many would reject it and say otherwise.

So, sticking to people, places, landmarks, historical events, what can you claim to have been proven wrong? And the absence of proof affirming can not be used to achieve this as archeologists have unearthed sites that were once thought not to exist. Regrets here if this has been discussed. I searched, but didn't find anything to this point.

How about the tower of Babel?

I'm not an atheist, but want to hear your opinion of it.

 

[happyjoy]

OK, I don't know if you expected a reply from me, but I'll make this exception, because it was so easy to find.

http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html

From this point, I would ask atheists to pose the issues. Obviously, I can only "ask" this. I'm of the belief that nothing has been PROVEN inaccurate by atheists, archeologists or historians. Perhaps the atheist would say that the limitations ham string them too much to which I say, if you base your opinion that the Bible is full of inaccuracies on the sciences, something should have been proven wrong to solidify your concrete dismissal.

Neither side will ever give absolute proof of God's existence. I'd like to keep the focus on this thread to inaccuracies of the Bible. And I'd like to stay away from miraculous events and the one-time events that can't be reproduced today or proven not to have occurred.

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.

your reaction might be to start with the first chapter and claim it is wrong from the start evidenced by proof of evolution. You can say this is proven all you want, but it is still a theory. You can say the preponderance of evidence supports your theory, but it is a "theory" that many would reject it and say otherwise.

So, sticking to people, places, landmarks, historical events, what can you claim to have been proven wrong? And the absence of proof affirming can not be used to achieve this as archeologists have unearthed sites that were once thought not to exist. Regrets here if this has been discussed. I searched, but didn't find anything to this point.

How about the tower of Babel?

I'm not an atheist, but want to hear your opinion of it.

I tried to read that link, but to be honest it just asked too much. In the first three paragraphs it totally redefined at least two words with completely different meanings. Then asked me to understand the rest using the newly defined words.

I don't like that.

I don't like it from Atheists, and I don't like it from Christians.

For example.

Pluto is a planet just deal with it.

 

[kpd560]

I'm sure I could find entire websites dedicated to errors in the bible and you in turn could find apologies for those errors so that tack is pointless IMO. After all, people have been arguing about the truth of all the god authored books forever it seems.

At a higher level than exactly what the bible says, the bible was edited by ordinary men. Didn't a council decide what was put in the bible and what was left out? In fact, wasn't it this council that decided that Jesus was a god and not just a man? How is that possible on one hand and on the other hand the bible is the inerrant word of God? All the word of God I presume. So how did ordinary men get to decide what gets included as the word of God and what doesn't?

Best.

 

[seekandlisten]

Neither side will ever give absolute proof of God's existence. I'd like to keep the focus on this thread to inaccuracies of the Bible. And I'd like to stay away from miraculous events and the one-time events that can't be reproduced today or proven not to have occurred.

I'm a little confused as to what you would like to discuss but I'll put forward a few points. First, I find it kind of odd that you direct this as athiest pointing out the 'fallibility' of the bible as their are many 'believers' that don't hold up the bible as 'infallible'. As I am unsure of exactly the purpose of this thread I am going to direct this post at the inaccuracies and additions found in the bible. Whether one decides if they are 'proof' is up to the reader.

your reaction might be to start with the first chapter and claim it is wrong from the start evidenced by proof of evolution. You can say this is proven all you want, but it is still a theory. You can say the preponderance of evidence supports your theory, but it is a "theory" that many would reject it and say otherwise.

I don't wish to engage the creation/evolution debate, but I would suggest a closer look at 'scientific theory' and how it works.

Aside from that, whether one decides to take the Genesis account as 'literal history' or as being taken metaphorically or symbolically is the decision of the reader, not really having anything to do with accuracy of the account.

I do wonder why there is even the belief that the bible MUST be infallible or everything 'crumbles apart' mindset. Why exactly must the bible be infallible? The bible is meant to be a 'road-map' that leads to the Kingdom, not the final revelation of God to man.

The very idea that the 'Church's authority' or the bible must be preserved for our salvation, to me, is missing the 'essence' of the gospel message put forth in the bible. Everyone is, or should be, aware of the corruption that entered the church in history. Martin Luther wrote, in a letter to Pope Leo X in 1520, of the church "…once the holiest of all, has become the most licentious den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels, the kingdom of sin, death, and hell. It is so bad that even Antichrist himself, if he should come, could think of nothing to add to its wickedness" (Quoted in: The Great Thoughts; compiled by George Seldes).

The apostle Paul warned in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 (NKJ), "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works"

If one believes that we are the prodigal sons of our Heavenly Father, and the kingdom is within us (Luke 17:21), and that all who truly live a consecrated life will be shown the undefiled Word of God that can be accessed by a journey along the narrow path that opens the 'strait gate' that leads to the indwelling Temple (1 Corinthians 3:16), then the belief that the bible must be infallible no longer becomes necessary. The bible, even in its 'corrupted' form, is sufficient to manifest the Living Word of God in the life of the believer.

Now having said that I will move on to 'evidence' that has been put forth to show that the bible isn't free from corruption.

One of the most common biblical manuscripts used to make our modern English translations is the Nestle text, however, Prof. Eberhard Nestle himself warned in his Einfhrung in die Textkritik des griechischen Testaments, "Learned men, so called Correctores were, following the church meeting at Nicea 325 AD, selected by the church authorities to scrutinize the sacred texts and rewrite them in order to correct their meaning in accordance with the views which the church had just sanctioned."


In his book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Prof. Bart D. Ehrman warns us that, "...theological disputes, specifically disputes over Christology, prompted Christian scribes to alter the words of scripture in order to make them more serviceable for the polemical task. Scribes modified their manuscripts to make them more patently ‘orthodox’ and less susceptible to ‘abuse’ by the opponents of orthodoxy"


The surviving Greek texts of the book of Acts are so radically different from each other that it has been suggested that multiple versions written. In his book, The Text of the New Testament, Dr. Vincent Taylor wrote, "The manuscripts of the New Testament preserve traces of two kinds of dogmatic alterations: those which involve the elimination or alteration of what was regarded as doctrinally unacceptable or inconvenient, and those which introduce into the Scriptures proof for a favorite theological tenet or practice".

"In the year 1707, John Mill shattered all faith in the infallibility of the Bible by demonstrating 30,000 various readings which were produced from 80 manuscripts. The findings of, first Mill, and then Wetstein (1751), proved once and for all that the variations in the biblical texts, many of which were quite serious, had existed from the earliest of times." (Has the Bible Been Faithfully Preserved? Allan Cronshaw)

Will continue in my next post.

 

[seekandlisten]

Carrying on....

One of the oldest copies of the bible which dates back to the 5th century, the Codex Bezae, is presented in the Brittanica as "Codex Bezae… has a text that is very different from other witnesses. Codex Bezae has many distinctive longer and shorter readings and seems almost to be a separate edition. Its 'Acts, for example, is one-tenth longer than usual’"

In regards to this, Dr. Vincent Taylor writes that, "It is characterized by a series of remarkable omissions in Luke, especially in chapters XXII and XXIV, and by many striking additions and variations in the Acts" (The Text of the New Testament, Dr. Vincent Taylor)

Celsus, the 2nd century philosopher wrote, "Certain Christians, like men who are overcome by the fumes of wine and care not in the least what they say, alter the original text of the Gospels so that they admit of various and almost indefinite readings. And this, I suppose, they have done out of worldly policy, so that when we press an argument home, they might have the more scope for their pitiful evasions"

Origin replied to Celsus by saying, "Besides, it is not at all fair to bring this charge against the Christian religion as a crime unworthy of its pretended purity; only those persons who were concerned in the fraud should, in equity, be held answerable for it" (Origen, Contra Celsus). While addressing the 'problem' Origin did not dispute the fact that texts were altered.

St. Jerome wrote, "They write down not what they find but what they think is the meaning; and while they attempt to rectify the errors of others, they merely expose their own" (Jerome, Epist. lxxi.5)

The New Unger's Bible Dictionary, under the title Versions of the Scriptures, states that, "Jerome had not been long in Rome (A.D. 383) when Damasus asked him to make a revision of the current Latin version of the New Testament with the help of the Greek original. 'There were,' he says, 'almost as many forms of text as copies.' The gospels had naturally suffered most. Jerome therefore applied himself to these first. But his aim was to revise the Old Latin and not to make a new version. Yet, although he had this limited objective, the various forms of corruption that had been introduced were, as he describes them, so numerous that the difference of the old and revised (Hieronymian) text is clear and striking throughout. Some of the changes Jerome introduced were made purely on linguistic grounds, but it is impossible to ascertain on what principle he proceeded in this respect. Others involved questions of interpretation. But the greater number consisted in the removal of the interpolations by which especially the synoptic gospels were disfigured".

Eusebius wrote of a number of sects of Christians of his day by saying, "Therefore they have laid their hands boldly upon the Divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them. That I am not speaking falsely of them in this matter, whoever wishes may learn. For if any one will collect their respective copies, and compare them one with another, he will find that they differ greatly. Those of Asclepiades, for example, do not agree with those of Theodotus. And many of these can be obtained, because their disciples have assiduously written the corrections, as they call them, that is the corruptions, of each of them. Again, those of Hermophilus do not agree with these, and those of Apollonides are not consistent with themselves. For you can compare those prepared by them at an earlier date with those which they corrupted later, and you will find them widely different. But how daring this offense is, it is not likely that they themselves are ignorant. For either they do not believe that the Divine Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, and thus are unbelievers, or else they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and in that case what else are they than demoniacs? For they cannot deny the commission of the crime, since the copies have been written by their own hands. For they did not receive such Scriptures from their instructors, nor can they produce any copies from which they were transcribed".

St. Augustine wrote, "For those who are anxious to know the Scriptures ought in the first place to use their skill in the correction of the texts, so that the uncorrected ones should give way to the corrected" (De Doctrina Christ., II. 14).

Here is some info to look at in regards to the bible and its preservation. I wrote down the sources of quotes as I had them, but most of these are based of my notes from reading Allan Cronshaws Has the Bible Been Faithfully Preserved? which I would suggest reading if one was interested. As you can see it is pretty bold to make the statement the bible is 'infallible' with the 'evidence' pointing to changes, revisions, and additions.

For instance, in An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture by Isaac Newton, he shows that 1 John 5:7 was later added in support of the Trinity doctrine and I'm pretty sure this has yet to be seriously disputed.

cheers

 

[Mike]

I'm sure I could find entire websites dedicated to errors in the bible and you in turn could find apologies for those errors so that tack is pointless IMO. After all, people have been arguing about the truth of all the god authored books forever it seems.

At a higher level than exactly what the bible says, the bible was edited by ordinary men. Didn't a council decide what was put in the bible and what was left out? In fact, wasn't it this council that decided that Jesus was a god and not just a man? How is that possible on one hand and on the other hand the bible is the inerrant word of God? All the word of God I presume. So how did ordinary men get to decide what gets included as the word of God and what doesn't?

Best.

kpd, while I agree with the premise of the first paragraph, I'm not sure it helps to label your claim as an example and the Christian response an apology for those errors. Unless you mean "apology" as in "defense" not as an excuse, but I think if I were you I would have said "defense of claims to errors". But I think we simply have different styles.

As for part II, the process of determining which books would comprise of the canon was a careful study of the 4 criteria (listed below). I would never say I have exhaustive knowledge of this process, but personally (obviously) I am convinced of the legitimacy of it. I was trying to stick to identifiable facts or historical information in the bible. To discuss the over-all inclusion of the books as you have done relies on faith that God lead the inclusion of the books just as He did the writing of it. He had His hand on the process. Simply stating that people voted on the books doesn’t eliminate our belief that the process was inspired and in no way, the purity of the scripture for us. And I know this is an inadequate answer for the atheist.

The intent of this discussion wasn’t intended to debate the process of deciding the canon, it was to talk about its content. As far as Jesus’ devinity, in pretty much the entire body of early Christian writings from the first three centuries, Jesus' divinity is taken for granted. Christians differed not over that basic assumption but rather over how to understand his divine nature. At the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, the crucial question was how to reconcile Jesus' divinity with Christian monotheism. I would be interested in staying on task if anyone has an example that has been proven wrong. You don’t have to engage in this if you don’t want to, and you can dismiss a defense of those points if you want.

The following was pulled from gotquestions.org. I’ve read more thorough articles addressing the process, but I felt this was effective without being too long-winded.

“For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.

The first “canon†was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in A.D. 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.

The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God’s imparting to His followers what He had already decided. The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, and despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the boks He had inspired.â€

 

[seekandlisten]

Christians differed not over that basic assumption but rather over how to understand his divine nature. At the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, the crucial question was how to reconcile Jesus' divinity with Christian monotheism. I would be interested in staying on task if anyone has an example that has been proven wrong. You don’t have to engage in this if you don’t want to, and you can dismiss a defense of those points if you want.

As I put forth earlier,

For instance, in An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture by Isaac Newton, he shows that 1 John 5:7 was later added in support of the Trinity doctrine and I'm pretty sure this has yet to be seriously disputed.

What is your opinion in regards to the addition of 1 John 5:7 of which the intent is clear at being the promotion of the Trinity doctrine?

cheers

 

[kpd560]

kpd, while I agree with the premise of the first paragraph, I'm not sure it helps to label your claim as an example and the Christian response an apology for those errors. Unless you mean "apology" as in "defense" not as an excuse, but I think if I were you I would have said "defense of claims to errors". But I think we simply have different styles.

Apology as defense as in Apologetics. I may have the terms mixed up, I apologize.

To discuss the over-all inclusion of the books as you have done relies on faith that God lead the inclusion of the books just as He did the writing of it. He had His hand on the process. Simply stating that people voted on the books doesn’t eliminate our belief that the process was inspired and in no way, the purity of the scripture for us. And I know this is an inadequate answer for the atheist.

Yes it is but supernatural intervention is the only answer possible so I can hardly fault you.

Best.

 

[logical bob]

Didn't a council decide what was put in the bible and what was left out? In fact, wasn't it this council that decided that Jesus was a god and not just a man?

You've been reading the Da Vinci Code again haven't you? Check your facts.

 

[seekandlisten]

Didn't a council decide what was put in the bible and what was left out? In fact, wasn't it this council that decided that Jesus was a god and not just a man?

You've been reading the Da Vinci Code again haven't you? Check your facts.

Was it not the Council of Laodicea in 364 AD that decided the canons of the Church which included canon #60 that stated what was to be included in their readings?

CANON LX.

THESE are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, Genesis of the world; 2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs;17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel.

And these are the books of the New Testament: Four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon.

Did this council not decide that all these books were not 'inspired' by God?
Barnabas
I Clement
II Clement
Christ and Abgarus
The Apostles' Creed
I Hermas-Visions
II Hermas-Commands
III Hermas-Similitudes
Ephesians
I Infancy
II Infancy
Mary
Magnesians
Nicodemus
Paul and Seneca
Paul and Thecla
Philippians
Philadelphians
Polycarp
Romans
Trallians
Letters of Herod and Pilate
The First Book of Adam and Eve
The Second Book of Adam and Eve
The Secrets of Enoch
The Psalms of Solomon
The Odes of Solomon
The Fourth Book of Maccabees
The Story of Ahikar
The Testament of Reuben
Asher
Joseph
Simeon
Levi
Judah
Issachar
Zebulum
Dan
Naphtali
Gad
Benjamin

If I'm not mistaken, some of these book were then again added to the list of 'approved' books leading to what we have today with the Bible, additional Roman Catholic 'approved' books, I think even the Eastern Orthodox holds a separate list of books then the RC's but I'm not sure. I guess one could say 'God' guided those 'picking' the books but there seems to be some minor differences in opinion between the different 'schools of thought' of which ones God was guiding them to pick.

It was the First Council of Nicea in 325 AD which settled the dispute in the church, by settled I mean excommunicated those who didn't agree(see Arian controversy), on the 'nature of God', like anyone could know, and concluded that the Father and Son were of the same 'substance' and so began the formation of the Trinity doctrine which when finalized states that Jesus is in fact God 'Himself' and not a mere man.

Correct me if I missed something.

cheers


(Edited as I had made an error in wording)

 

[seekandlisten]

Didn't a council decide what was put in the bible and what was left out? In fact, wasn't it this council that decided that Jesus was a god and not just a man?

You've been reading the Da Vinci Code again haven't you? Check your facts.

Was it not the Council of Laodicea in 364 AD that decided the canons of the Church which included canon #60 that stated what was to be included in their readings?

Sorry Bob, I was just reading over this thread and realized I totally misread the original post so my response was in misunderstanding what was said. My bad. I'll leave it up as additional info though.

cheers

 

[logical bob]

So, sticking to people, places, landmarks, historical events, what can you claim to have been proven wrong?

The census described in Luke's nativity story. It has several problems.

We're told that Joseph lived in Nazareth and was included in the census. Nazareth was in Galilee, which was ruled by Herod Antipas as a Roman client king. As such it wasn't part of the province of Syria so it definitely wouldn't have been included in a census called by the governor of Syria. There were no censuses in client kingdoms - the local ruler was left to rule as he saw fit so long as he paid enough to Rome.

No Roman census ever required people to travel to their ancestral home. Why would it? They wanted to know where you lived so they could collect your taxes. The Romans couldn't have cared less about Jewish tribal ancestry. There's no evidence outside Luke to suggest that this ever happened. The first census under Quirinius is described in some detail by Jospehus, who never mentions any requirement that people leave home to be counted.

Lastly, the census took place in AD 6/7. This is odd because Matthew tells us that Jesus was born in the reign of Herod the Great, and Herod died in 4 BC. The two nativity accounts disagree by at least 10 years.

 

[Mike]

L Bob (I love the way that sounds and think you should change your name). I haven't been home at all lately and want to check into this. Thanks for the reply!

 

[coelacanth]

Factual error:

Leviticus 11:6 (New International Version)
The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.

Rabbits don't chew their cud.

 

[Mike]

So, sticking to people, places, landmarks, historical events, what can you claim to have been proven wrong?

The census described in Luke's nativity story. It has several problems.

We're told that Joseph lived in Nazareth and was included in the census. Nazareth was in Galilee, which was ruled by Herod Antipas as a Roman client king. As such it wasn't part of the province of Syria so it definitely wouldn't have been included in a census called by the governor of Syria. There were no censuses in client kingdoms - the local ruler was left to rule as he saw fit so long as he paid enough to Rome.

No Roman census ever required people to travel to their ancestral home. Why would it? They wanted to know where you lived so they could collect your taxes. The Romans couldn't have cared less about Jewish tribal ancestry. There's no evidence outside Luke to suggest that this ever happened. The first census under Quirinius is described in some detail by Jospehus, who never mentions any requirement that people leave home to be counted.

Lastly, the census took place in AD 6/7. This is odd because Matthew tells us that Jesus was born in the reign of Herod the Great, and Herod died in 4 BC. The two nativity accounts disagree by at least 10 years.

However, renowned archaeologist Sir William Ramsay concluded from various coin inscriptions that Quirinius ruled Syria on two separate occasions. Also, some Greek language scholars have declared that Luke’s text should actually be translated, ‘This census took place before Quirinius was governing Syria.’ Either way, credible explanations exist.

I am not just throwing a quote back at you and saying, “you’re wrong – I’m rightâ€. I like to think I’m a bit more humble than that. Again, I thank you for your response and don’t think the matter is as cut & dry as you would suggest.

This is an odd one…

Factual error:

Leviticus 11:6 (New International Version)
The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.

Rabbits don't chew their cud.

I asked for it, so I suppose I should respond to this.

In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.

However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

 

[logical bob]

However, renowned archaeologist Sir William Ramsay concluded from various coin inscriptions that Quirinius ruled Syria on two separate occasions. Also, some Greek language scholars have declared that Luke’s text should actually be translated, ‘This census took place before Quirinius was governing Syria.’ Either way, credible explanations exist.

Even if Quirinius governed Syria twice, Nazareth was not part of the province of Syria. A man from Nazareth would not be included in any Roman decreed census because it was part of a client kingdom.

Judea, which included Bethlehem, came under direct Roman administration after the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC. Before that date, Judea too was part of a client kingdom and therefore not subject to Roman census. Even if there were a census before Quirinius became governor of Syria, there was definitely not a Roman census in Judea during the reign of Herod the Great. Luke's account cannot be reconciled to Matthew's.

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

 

[Mike]

However, renowned archaeologist Sir William Ramsay concluded from various coin inscriptions that Quirinius ruled Syria on two separate occasions. Also, some Greek language scholars have declared that Luke’s text should actually be translated, ‘This census took place before Quirinius was governing Syria.’ Either way, credible explanations exist.

Even if Quirinius governed Syria twice, Nazareth was not part of the province of Syria. A man from Nazareth would not be included in any Roman decreed census because it was part of a client kingdom.

Judea, which included Bethlehem, came under direct Roman administration after the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC. Before that date, Judea too was part of a client kingdom and therefore not subject to Roman census. Even if there were a census before Quirinius became governor of Syria, there was definitely not a Roman census in Judea during the reign of Herod the Great. Luke's account cannot be reconciled to Matthew's.

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

L Bob, I’m going to post the link to this site in addition to posting an excerpt. This is a bit lengthy, but I know you’re a reader. In addition to the details cited, I would just say it seems unlikely that Luke – the physician – would make such a blatant error. He was extremely detailed and is of particular note for this attribute. Given the plausible explanations (this author acknowledges the historical question) and the overall historicity that he presents in detail, I still submit that this is not a closed case.
---
Luke dates Jesus' birth to the time when Caesar Augustus had decreed that the whole world be registered (apographesthai), which (Publius Sulpicius) Quirinius carried out when he "was governor of Syria" (hêgemoneuontos tês Surias) (Luke 2:1-2; see Luke 3:1). Based on Luke 1:5, by implication, Herod the Great was still alive. The historical problem is that there is no other evidence apart from Luke's statement of such a census; in fact, it is difficult to integrate what Luke says about Quirinius with what is known about his career from other sources. Josephus records that in 6 Quirinius was sent by Caesar Augustus to serve as the legatus of Syria (Josephus' term dikaiodotês is the Greek equivalent of the Latin legatus); part of his task was to undertake an assessment (timêtês) of the property of the population of Judea after the deposition of Archaleus, the son of Herod the Great. (Coponius was also sent to function to rule over Judea, functioning a procurator or praefectus under the authority of Quirnius.) (Ant. 17.355; 18.1-2). That this assessment extended beyond Judea is proven by an inscription in which Aemilius Secundus records that he took a census in Apamea (in Syria) on the orders of Quirninius (CIL III 6687). It was this assessment of property for the purpose of taxation that led Judas the Galilean to lead a popular rebellion against Rome (Ant. 18.1-2; Acts 5:37). It has been suggested that Luke wrongly retrojected this assessement of property in 6/7 into the time when Herod the Great was still alive and the time of Jesus' birth. (Herod the Great died in 4 BCE.) This was the reason that Joseph and Mary had to travel to Bethlehem. This conclusion, however, is not necessary. In fact, prima facie, it seems unlikely that Luke would make such a chronological blunder.

Two viable explanations for this apparent chronological difficulty have been offered. First, it is possible that Luke's statement in that Luke 2:2 should be translated as "This registration occurred before Quirinius was in charge of Syria." The word prôtê ("first") can sometime be used in the sense of protera, the comparative of prôtê, meaning "former" or "prior" (see Acts 1:1; John 1:15, 30; 15:18). In this case, the phrase hêgemoneuontos tês Surias ("Quirinius was in charge") would be a genitive of comparison. If this is what he intended, all that Luke is saying is that a registration was conducted by the decree of Augustus before the better known assessment of property undertaken by Quirinius in 6/7. Grammatically, this is possible, but not probable, since it is most natural to take the participle as a genitive absolute: "when Quirinius was in charge of Syria."

Second, attempts have been made to find a previous appointment of Quirinius as legatus that would enable him to oversee the registration mentioned in Luke 2:2. Quirinius was consul in 12 BCE and led military campaign against the Homanadenses of Asia Minor near Galatia (Tacitus, Ann. 3.48). The partially preserved inscription known as the lapis tiburtinus refers to a certain legatus (the name has not been preserved): "pro-praetorial legatus of Divus Augustus, he received again Syria and Phoenicia" ([legatus pro praetore] divi Augusti iterum Syriam et Pho[enicen optinuit]) (CIL XIV, 3613). Ramsay argues that this inscription probably refers to Quirinius, which may mean that Quirinius was twice legatus of Syria (Was Christ Born in Bethlehem?). (This assumes that the Latin word iterum ["again"] modifies the verb optinuit "received," which is a possible interpretation.) It is Ramsey's hypothesis that Quirinius received a imperium maius (greater jurisdiction) during the time of the Homanadensian campaign, so that at the time he exercised power along with the actual legatus of Syria, S. Sentius Saturninus (9-6 BCE). It was during this time that, as legatus, Quirinius received orders to undertake the registration. This possibility finds support in the strange reference in Tertullian that Jesus' birth took place under the legate Saturninus (Adv. Marc. 4.19.10). At the time of the birth of Jesus, both Quirinius and Saturninus were legati of Syria. Although it would have been unusual, the Romans undertook a registration of the population while Herod the Great was still king as opposed to after his death. This registration is otherwise unknown: Luke alone, among ancient authors, testifies to this official event. (Based on papyrus evidence alone, it has been determined that the Romans took a registration of the province of Egypt every fourteen years [OxyP 2.254, 255, 256].)

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/Li ... hJesus.htm

mjjcb

 

[logical bob]

The main thing about the lapis tiburtinus is that it includes no names, so it's pure speculation to suggest it refers to Quirinius. As your writer acknowledges, someone being governor of Syria twice is one possible interpretation of a small fragment of text. The conclusion that this person was a governor twice and the second post (but not the first) was in Syria is just as plausible.

We know from two inscriptions (which, unlike the lapis tiburtinus, do include his name) that Quirinius was ruler of the city of Pisidian Antioch in Asia Minor some time between 10 BC and 1 BC, We also know, as your article mentions, that Quirinius was involved in fighting bandits in Galatia around the same time.

Now, check out this map. Notice where Pisidian Antioch is, roughly in the centre. Galatia, where the military action was, is to the north. The province of Syria is away to the east, past Iconium and Lystra, across the Taurus mountains and the other side of the province of Cilicia. Judea is far to the south, at the other end of the huge province of Syria.

Your 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.

Your article unfortunately can’t offer anything other than the name free-lapis tiburtinus and Ramsay’s opinion to support the idea that such a dual governorship existed. It certainly isn’t mentioned in any surviving Roman source although we do have an unbroken list of Syrian governors throughout the period in question.

Your article also admits that it would be extremely unusual for a census to take place in Judea during the reign of Herod the Great and that there is no evidence outside Luke to suggest that it did.

The article is right to note that Luke 1:5 suggests that the author thinks the census took place in the reign of Herod the Great. Given the overwhelming evidence that this is wrong, you have to ask why the author of Luke knows so little about the history of the period and what this means for who wrote that gospel, where and when.

Your addition to this is that you don’t think Luke would make an error. This is a disappointing argument, because when you started this thread I thought you were interested in discussing evidence. It appears now that when the Bible and reality are in conflict, for you it’s reality that has to back down. Sad.