Steven Avery

First you get upset with us for talking about these issues.
Now you say the problem is we don't talk about the issues ?
Hmmm..

And you want us to scour the texts looking for potential concerns ?
Surely that is one reason why God suffers the skeptics to be here ...

btw, did you ever read where Jesus talked about they played both
sides against John the Baptist and Jesus ?

The 'winebibbers and ascetic' syndrome.

And shouldn't this be on its own philosophical-type thread ..

"Why do those pesky Christians defend Bible accuracy
when we claim there is an error?"

Something like that.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

We saw the same problem in the article on the virgin birth and prophecy. Granted, when it was shown to him here Richard agreed that he needed to address the weightier writers and arguments.

So it would be a good question on the thread about the dating of the birth narratives as well (which I am not following closely so I am not commenting on the specifics).

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Carr

You mean Richard's article makes no mention of sources that you yourself can't be bothered to reference?

Produce the sources and then we can see what you are talking about.

Steven Carr

Were they taxed or not? Is the Bible silent on the subject of whether or not there was a taxation?

How did they enroll people without counting how many people were enrolled?

Steven Carr

One obvious point struck me as well.

The web page you choose to cite says 'Let us recall from the last chapter that Tertullian said that Roman records supported the fact that censuses (he used the plural) were conducted in Palestine at the time of Jesus’ birth. Tertullian said they took place at the time when Saturninus was governor of Syria.'

Saturninus stopped being governor of Syria in 7 BC.

So your chosen web page lacks all credibility.

And also very funny.

Apparently Mary and Joseph had to travel all the way to Bethlehem to swear an oath of allegiance to Augustus!

Steven Avery

Today when they count the number of voters who register to vote, or count the number of tax returns filed, there should be a count but not a census. Every census is a count but not everything that has a count is a census.

As for your taxation question, they went to be taxed, the Bible does not tell us if the taxation was completed. Usually the authorities are very taxing. Sometimes they are incompetent or social situations change.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Jayrok

I'm not upset with anyone. My comment was in response to your claim that skeptics were the ones who raised this issue. But this issue probably should have been raised when the NT was put together in print.

I didn't say it was a problem that christians don't bring up accuracy issues, it's just an observation in general.

It's your 800 lb gorilla, defend away... and good luck with all that.

spin

I don't really see that one need go past these points. They are sufficient to close the issue. However, people insist on ignoring them.

First item that needs to be noted beyond Stephen Carr's list is that, when Luke says a decree came from Augustus to enrol the whole world, Augustus only carried out three censuses. They were for Roman citizens and one was not in 3 BCE or 6 CE. (There is an extensive literature on Augustus's three censuses.)

Any quibbling on the significance of the verb hgemoneuw meaning "govern" as it is found in Lk 2:2 in the context hgemoneuontos ths surias kureniou is ridiculous. In the verbal form given the object as Syria, there is no other way of reading the exression than that Quirinius governed Syria, ie was the governor.

And on that governing Syria, Quirinius would not have had any direct jurisdiction over Judea until the end of the local dynasty, when Archelaus was removed. Rome did not usually meddle directly in client kingdoms. Herod was given total control over his own kingdom. The historical context necessitates an era when Rome had direct sway over Judea, ie 6 CE or after.

The story about Joseph and Mary leaving Galilee, which at the time of Quirinius's census was in the hands of Herod Antipas, and going to another country for this enrolment makes no sense whatsoever.

All attempts to shift the census from that made by Quirinius in 6 CE have failed through lack of evidence and occasion. We know of only one census carried out by Quirinius in Judea, we know when and we know why. There is no earlier occasion when Quirinius governed Syria. The case is simple. The efforts to avoid the inevitable fact that Luke's census was the one known to history can only be seen as tendentious without basis. The cause for these efforts is inerrancy. This has nothing to do with finding out what really happened, but with pacifying one's own beliefs.


spin

Toto

Joe Wallack has a post here in his errancywiki thread that seems to belongs to this thread, but he has declined my offer to move it:

judge

But it is not enough merely to state for example "Herod was dead" , you need to deal with the evidence that shows this was not so. You need to explain it.

Astronomy and the Death of King Herod

Your approach here seems no different to that of a religious fundamentalist.

You completely ignored the evidence to the contrary and repeat (by way of agreement).."Herod was dead"




Actually I had been quite happy to believe Lukes gospel just got it wrong. Doesn't really matter.
But I must say I am surprised when looking in more detail that Richards article has some major shortcomings and even you just take the approach seemingly of ignoring the evidence Herod did not die in 4 BC..