 |
|
Zylka
|
|
My point in spades!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
Back from vacation.
I'm most saddened by Cavebear's tack on the issue.
quote:
The "mystery of the absence of Jesus's body in the vault" can be easily explained by suggesting that Jesus never really existed in the first place. There is not one single piece of evidence for his existence.
|
Go here, cavebear. Lots of extrabiblical evidence for the existence of Christ of Nazareth.
http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm
Rebutting that point, I'd like to move onto Boris:
quote:
There are no eye witness accounts, nothing but writings that were made decades after the supposed events.
|
*ahem*
When did Tacitus write his annals? The synoptic Gospels based on eyewitness testimony were written around 55-60 BC, a mere 20-25 years after the events occured. To fake such an event would be impossible because there would be many people alive who witnessed the event. This is substantial evidence in favour of the historicity of the Gospels.
quote:
(most "criminals" who were crucified by the Romans were buried in public pits, anyway).
|
Most may have been, but not Christ. The Gospels record his body as being placed in the grave, and why he got the grave of Joseph of Arimathea
quote:
The Bible itself offers conflicting accounts of the Resurrection, so it is hard to take it seriously.
|
Details. 
quote:
God has obviously not provided adequate evidence, or else there wouldn't be such debate over it!
|
Assumes that people are always logical, and perceive things properly. That's a big assumption. People are most definitely not logical, and will not see what is in front of their face.
"They will be ever seeing, though not understanding."
quote:
There are enough translations that attempt to be faithful to the actual Hebrew text that being a scholar isn't necessary.
|
That's an awful big leap of faith. At least you admit that you trust a source based on nothing but a 'attempt to be faithful to the actual Hebrew text.'
quote:
It drops whole versus from the original texts. How is that explicable?
|
With the note:
'Not found on the earliest manuscripts.'
At least they show what they are doing up front!
As for Christians supposed to be perfect, to emulate Christ.
Matthew 5:48
"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
From Christ himself. Pretty authoritative as to what Christians should believe.
quote:
Seeking a purpose in life need not hinge on believing in deities or the like.
|
But curiosity does. I am, by nature, a curious person, and I want to understand how best the world works. To do so, you need God.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
 |
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:28
|
|
The Josephus articles are widely regarded as later additions by Christians, as I'm sure you're aware.
"Yeshua" was hanged, not crucified. The Jewish custom of the time was to stone heretics and then hang the body from a tree. So the name isn't quite right, and his fate isn't right either. Otherwise, yes, this is about as close as any source ever gets to "independent evidence for Jesus".
Thallus is a third-hand account of a mysterious darkness which happened at an unspecified time. It is likely that he was referring to the total eclipse of November 29 AD, and this may also be the origin of the Christian "darkness" (which is only mentioned in Luke, possibly because other authors knew that the date was completely wrong).
The other sources don't count, because they confirm only that the Christians believed in the existence of Jesus, not that he actually did exist: the historians don't claim to be eyewitnesses. This is hardly news.
So there is no independent confirmation of the existence of Jesus, other than the possibility that he was the dissident "Yeshua" who was stoned and hanged, not crucified.
quote:
The synoptic Gospels based on eyewitness testimony were written around 55-60 BC, a mere 20-25 years after the events occured. |
Where are you getting those dates from, and where is the supporting evidence? Nobody knows when the gospels were written! Suggested dates range from 65 AD (Mark) into the following century.
quote:
To fake such an event would be impossible because there would be many people alive who witnessed the event. This is substantial evidence in favour of the historicity of the Gospels. |
Circular reasoning, you're assuming it happened. If the event did not happen, there would be no eyewitnesses. Hence, no contradictory accounts: as the gospels don't even specify which year Jesus was crucified in, everyone who failed to remember seeing him crucified could simply assume they missed it. Only a small handful of people would know that it didn't happen at all: and are you really surprised that their accounts weren't included in the gospels?
quote:
(most "criminals" who were crucified by the Romans were buried in public pits, anyway).
Most may have been, but not Christ. The Gospels record his body as being placed in the grave, and why he got the grave of Joseph of Arimathea |
Why wouldn't the Romans toss his body into a pit? "Because the gospels say otherwise" is not a satisfactory answer.
quote:
When do you believe Isaiah was written, and why? You never gave a direct answer. |
Because I don't know. But you have still not explained why this is relevant.
I have already pointed out that Isaiah reads as if it was written after the events described therein. It describes a claimed prophecy, then later describes its fulfilment.
When citing prophecies as evidence of the supernatural authorship of the Bible, the burden of proof is always on the person making the supernatural claim. If I find an old magazine article describing the events of September 11th 2001, but the article isn't dated: which is more likely, that the article was written after the event, or that it was a "true prophecy"?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Go here, cavebear. Lots of extrabiblical evidence for the existence of Christ of Nazareth. |
Lots? Not exactly. Notice only Josephus and the Talmud are making direct references to the actions of Jesus. Josephus was, once again, written decades after the supposed events took place.
Given its variance from the Biblical account, the Talmud seems to support the theory I posited of Jesus being a composite character, of which "Yeshua" would be a part.
This is very scant evidence for such supposedly tumultuous and earth-shaking events.
quote:
*ahem*
When did Tacitus write his annals? |
In 109 CE, over 70 years after the supposed events. Mentioning Tacitus and Pliny as proof of Jesus existing is a huge stretch. Pliny says only that Christians worshiped a god named Christ, which was pretty self-evident.
Tacitus is most often cited, which is funny, because it's so incredibly weak. Look at the context--Tacitus was giving a history of Emperor Nero and the events surrounding the Great Fire and its aftermath. It is for this reason he mentions the sect called Christians, who were (as we know from Seutonius) one of MANY sects persecuted by Nero as blame for the fire. Tacitus only mentions "Christos" to explain who the Christians were and that their belief was considered a superstition.
First, we have no reason to believe Tacitus was doing anything more than reciting what he was told by Christians or those who knew of them. The historicity of there actually being a "Christos" was completely inconsequentual to the passage. Second, we know Tacitus exaggerates the crimes of Nero because of his strong anti-Imperial bias. Seutonius and other historians flatly contradict his assertion that people were used as human torches, fed to the lions, etc. Seutonius was quite, quite harsh in his criticism for and dislike of Nero, but Tacitus seems to have gone a step further into inventing things. This is just one of several incidences in his writings which modern historians believe are inaccurate.
There is also a lot of speculation that the passage itself is fraudulent, but I haven't seen much to support that claim.
quote:
The synoptic Gospels based on eyewitness testimony were written around 55-60 BC, a mere 20-25 years after the events occured. To fake such an event would be impossible because there would be many people alive who witnessed the event. This is substantial evidence in favour of the historicity of the Gospels. |
Jack already disposed of this. The first gospel we know of was Mark, written c. 65-70 CE That's 35-40 years after the supposed events, if the events even happened in c. 30 CE. You claim they are based on eyewitness testimony, but there isn't a shred of evidence to support that assertion. The best anyone has done is cite the phrase in John wherein he claims to be a witness, but this self-referential (therefore unsubstantiated) and seems to be fraudulent, as the earliest manuscripts of John do NOT feature this phrase. John has been dated by theolgoians to c. 110 CE, making it the work of an eyewitness to the events pretty unlikely
quote:
Most may have been, but not Christ. The Gospels record his body as being placed in the grave, and why he got the grave of Joseph of Arimathea [/UOTE]
Again, self-referential claims don't amount to corroborating evidence.
[QUOTE] Details. |
How many women came to the sepulchre? Whom did they meet in the tomb (how many)?
To whom did Jesus make his first post-resurrection appearance? Where did he first appear? Did Mary Magdelene recognize Jesus when she saw him? Or did he appear to her at all?
How many disciples did he appear to? Were they glad to see him, or terrified? Where did Jesus tell them to go?
Were people allowed to touch Jesus before he ascended to heaven? Where did Jesus ascend?
quote:
Assumes that people are always logical, and perceive things properly. That's a big assumption. People are most definitely not logical, and will not see what is in front of their face. |
This reminds me...why does Jesus speak in parables?
quote:
That's an awful big leap of faith. At least you admit that you trust a source based on nothing but a 'attempt to be faithful to the actual Hebrew text.' |
Of course, we must rely on such things. But considering the NIV is virtually alone among translations with much of the stuff it comes up with, and theologians overwhelmingly find it less-than-reliable, I will have to reject it in favor of translations that are more consistent.
quote:
With the note:
'Not found on the earliest manuscripts.'
At least they show what they are doing up front! |
Do they substantiate that? You'll note one of the links I provided showed that the NIV was relying on texts that have been showed to be flawed. The other sources also pointed out the problems with it. No response?
quote:
As for Christians supposed to be perfect, to emulate Christ.
Matthew 5:48
"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
From Christ himself. Pretty authoritative as to what Christians should believe. |
But you acknowledge it is impossible for a person to be perfect, so why the guilt over not being so? Seems so unneccessary.
quote:
But curiosity does. I am, by nature, a curious person, and I want to understand how best the world works. To do so, you need God. |
Malarky. I can't be curious because I don't believe in God? Thanks for telling me how I must think!
I have plenty of curiosity into how the universe works, how men interact and why we do what we do, etc. None of that is reliant on belief in a god.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
In 109 CE, over 70 years after the supposed events. Mentioning Tacitus and Pliny as proof of Jesus existing is a huge stretch.
|
Boris:
Using your standard, whom do we have proof of in this period of time?
quote:
Jack already disposed of this. The first gospel we know of was Mark, written c. 65-70 CE That's 35-40 years after the supposed events, if the events even happened in c. 30 CE. |
There are other authorities that cite different dates, but 65-70 is fine by me so long as the synoptics are dated before the fall of Jerusalem.
35-40 years is unprecendented for any work that we have from this time period, for any historical work that we still have.
Questions in turn:
How many women came to the sepulchre?
Luke 24: 2
"They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered,"
John only mentions Mary Magdelene.
So now a contradiction? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Whom did they meet in the tomb (how many)?
Luke mentions two, while Mark and Matthew only mention the one. There are other examples where they mention the spokesperson, while omitting the others.
To whom did Jesus make his first post-resurrection appearance?
Luke first mentions the road to Emmaus, Matthew the other women on the road. John and Mark mention Mary Magdelene.
Consensus places the appearance to Mary Magdelene as the first resurrection appearance.
Did Mary Magdelene recognize Jesus when she saw him? Or did he appear to her at all?
He appeared to her, Mary did not immediately recognise Jesus. She was not the only one who did not immediately recognise Jesus, BTW.
Matthew 28:1-5 are not along a linear timeline, as he has the stone rolling away and then cuts back to the resurrection appearance to the women.
How many disciples did he appear to?
11, at different times. 8 different appearances.
Were they glad to see him, or terrified?
Some were, some weren't.
Where did Jesus tell them to go?
Preach to everyone all over the Earth.
Were people allowed to touch Jesus before he ascended to heaven?
He asks Thomas to touch him, so yes.
Where did Jesus ascend?
Heaven. Skyward and Heaven are not mutually exclusive.
quote:
Malarky. I can't be curious because I don't believe in God? Thanks for telling me how I must think!
|
Now you know how I felt when you made your point about complicated life philosophies. Not fun, eh?
quote:
But you acknowledge it is impossible for a person to be perfect, so why the guilt over not being so? Seems so unneccessary.
|
Guilt helps you improve. Why improve if being rotten is good enough?
As for the NIV v. the KJV:
It makes a big difference whether the person looking into the issue is a Christian or not. I'd rather set aside this question, and work on these more pertinent ones.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
Jack:
quote:
Circular reasoning, you're assuming it happened. If the event did not happen, there would be no eyewitnesses. Hence, no contradictory accounts: as the gospels don't even specify which year Jesus was crucified in, everyone who failed to remember seeing him crucified could simply assume they missed it. Only a small handful of people would know that it didn't happen at all: and are you really surprised that their accounts weren't included in the gospels?
|
Assuming the event never happened, sounds like circular reasoning again.
I do not assume that the event happened, I'm looking at some of the surrounding events.
Did Peter preach at Pentecost? The only evidence that we have suggests that he did. We are bound to respect the evidence we have available over the evidence that does not exist.
Do we have some extra-biblical evidence that Christ existed? Yes. Is some of the evidence questionable? Yes. But we have some evidence, that would be considered sufficient if used in any other circumstance for any other historical personage.
Now, according to the biblical account of the resurrection, are there any reasons to believe that few heard the message? The Jewish authorities surely would have produced the body to crush the dissidents, if they could They themselves admit that they could not.
Explain the apostles! Explain how the church grew to become the church that we see today, if everything were based on a lie? Why believe?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Boris:
Using your standard, whom do we have proof of in this period of time? |
Plenty of people. Paul, for instance. My standards aren't that strident. For any person of such a monumental significance as Jesus, I'd expect at least one of these things:
1) Their own writings (none for JC)
2) Contemporary documents mentioning them (none for JC)
3) Contemporary first-hand eyewitness accounts (none for JC)
4) Even later first-hand accounts (none for JC)
Those aren't hard standards to meet, I believe. Not for the supposed Son of God.
quote:
There are other authorities that cite different dates, but 65-70 is fine by me so long as the synoptics are dated before the fall of Jerusalem. |
But there is no evidence they all were. Matthew, Luke and John were all written after the fall of Jerusalem. Matthew and Luke c. 90 CE, John c. 110-130 CE.
quote:
35-40 years is unprecendented for any work that we have from this time period, for any historical work that we still have. |
It's not unprecedented for first-hand, corroborating documentary evidence. You'll note that reliable histories from this period (like Tacitus or Seutonius) were based on diligence and documentary support.
I find it hard to believe the author of John could be said to have been dilligent when he makes the rather egregious error of saying Jesus and his followers were banned from the synagogues, when this would clearly not have been the case.
quote:
How many women came to the sepulchre?
Luke 24: 2
"They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered,"
John only mentions Mary Magdelene.
So now a contradiction? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. |
John says one. Matthew says two. Mark says three. Luke says five (or more). You don't think the word of God would be consistent?
Speaking of this, the stone... Luke says they found the tomb open, but Matthew says they see an angel come down, move the stone and sit on it. Is this consistent?
quote:
Whom did they meet in the tomb (how many)?
Luke mentions two, while Mark and Matthew only mention the one. There are other examples where they mention the spokesperson, while omitting the others. |
And where were they? Matthew says one, outside the tomb on the door. In Mark they have to enter to see the man. Luke and John say two inside the tomb. So we now have three in the mix.
quote:
To whom did Jesus make his first post-resurrection appearance?
Luke first mentions the road to Emmaus, Matthew the other women on the road. John and Mark mention Mary Magdelene.
Consensus places the appearance to Mary Magdelene as the first resurrection appearance. |
Matthew says the two Marys. Mark and John both say only Mary Magdelene. Luke says Cleopas and another. 1 Corinthians says Cephas!
quote:
Did Mary Magdelene recognize Jesus when she saw him? Or did he appear to her at all?
He appeared to her, Mary did not immediately recognise Jesus. She was not the only one who did not immediately recognise Jesus, BTW.
Matthew 28:1-5 are not along a linear timeline, as he has the stone rolling away and then cuts back to the resurrection appearance to the women. |
Luke doesn't say Mary Magdelane saw him, and then says in 23:24 that it was the two angels who told her of the resurrection, and then she tells the disciples. No mention of her seeing him. Odd thing to omit, eh? Especially since, according to Matthew, Jesus appears to her on her way to tell the disciples.
That you would claim Matthew isn't linear in this regard is bizarre, though. It clearly states they leave the sepulchre, and then Jesus appears to them. Are you saying the stone rolling was after they saw the resurrected Jesus?
quote:
How many disciples did he appear to?
11, at different times. 8 different appearances. |
John says 10, Matthew, Mark and Luke say 11, 1 Corinthians says 12 (the new Cephas).
quote:
Were they glad to see him, or terrified?
Some were, some weren't. |
Source? Luke says they were (as a group) terrified. John says they were (as a group) glad. Neither says some were this, some were that. Matthew also says they first see him on a mountain in Galilee, but the other three in a room in Jerusalem.
quote:
Where did Jesus tell them to go?
Preach to everyone all over the Earth. |
I meant precisely where to go! 
In Matthew and Mark, he tells the women to tell them to go to Galilee. Luke and Acts has him telling them to stay in Jerusalem.
quote:
Were people allowed to touch Jesus before he ascended to heaven?
He asks Thomas to touch him, so yes. |
According to John, Jesus won't let Mary Magdelene touch him, saying "I am not yet ascended to the Father." But he lets Thomas and others touch him. Was he lying to Mary to get away from her cooties, or was she somehow tainted and less worthy than Thomas to touch him?
quote:
Where did Jesus ascend?
Heaven. Skyward and Heaven are not mutually exclusive. |
No no no. At what locality did he ascend? Luke says Bethany, Acts says Mt. Olivet.
quote:
Now you know how I felt when you made your point about complicated life philosophies. Not fun, eh? |
Huh? What I said isn't remotely comparable. I said that I, personally, do not feel the need for a complicated life philosophy. I didn't say that anyone who doesn't believe what I believe is incapable of curiosity/introspection/etc.
quote:
Guilt helps you improve. Why improve if being rotten is good enough? |
Making mistakes and recognizing them and seeking to rectify them makes one improve--why does guilt have to be associated with it? Or do you believe we can only recognize mistakes through guilt? I don't think so. My moral conscience is not based on avoiding guilt for doing wrong, but seeking good things for doing right.
quote:
As for the NIV v. the KJV:
It makes a big difference whether the person looking into the issue is a Christian or not. I'd rather set aside this question, and work on these more pertinent ones. |
I agree, but that's because I think Christians will be more prone to glossing over the inconsistencies and bad things to suit their worldview (which is what I see in the NIV). But I'm happy to drop the subject...provided we can agree to use the KJV as our reference for the text. The NIV is controversial enough that we should drop it.
Oh, two more questions (you didn't answer my one about the parables) relating to the Old Testament:
What day of the month did Nebuchadnezzar enter Jerusalem?
Who was king of Babylon when it fell and the Jews were able to leave?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Matthew says the two Marys. Mark and John both say only Mary Magdelene. Luke says Cleopas and another.
|
Gee, maybe they only list their sources. None of the sources say that Mary Magdelene did not go to the grave, instead they provide different lists for the names that they know went.
quote:
1 Corinthians says Cephas!
|
1 Cor 15 says that Peter was one of the people to whom Christ appears. It does not say that Christ appeared to him first. The same for the other examples. No one Gospel records all the resurrection appearances, they record the ones for which they have testimonies.
quote:
And where were they? Matthew says one, outside the tomb on the door. In Mark they have to enter to see the man. Luke and John say two inside the tomb. So we now have three in the mix.
|
Different sources explain the difference in the places. One saw them inside the tomb, one saw them on the outside. Nothing preventing the angel from moving.
quote:
Are you saying the stone rolling was after they saw the resurrected Jesus?
|
Matthew starts with the women leaving, then with the rock rolling away. Remember the earlier discussion we had over the time of day that they left? Matthew cuts back to talk about the angel, and then cuts to the conversation between the angel and Mary Magdelene, without mentioning the arrival of Mary to the tomb. That's why I say that the passage does not proceed in a linear fashion.
quote:
Source? Luke says they were (as a group) terrified. John says they were (as a group) glad. Neither says some were this, some were that. Matthew also says they first see him on a mountain in Galilee, but the other three in a room in Jerusalem.
|
These couldn't be different appearances, now could they?
quote:
John says 10, Matthew, Mark and Luke say 11, 1 Corinthians says 12 (the new Cephas).
|
Paul in 1 Corinthians talks about, 'appeared to the Twelve.'
The Twelve refers to the twelve original apostles. The reason the Twelve are eleven has to do with the death of Judas.
The appearance to the 10 is a seperate appearance.
quote:
Luke says Bethany, Acts says Mt. Olivet.
|
Well, where is Bethany?
Luke 19:29
"As he approached Bethphage and Bethany at the hill called the Mount of Olives,"
So they are two different ways of referring to the same place.
quote:
In Matthew and Mark, he tells the women to tell them to go to Galilee. Luke and Acts has him telling them to stay in Jerusalem. |
It would really help to cite passages... Different things they are talking about. Luke and Acts have Christ telling the disciples to preach to all nations, starting with Jerusalem. Matthew and Mark have Christ telling the women to tell the apostles that Christ will appear in Galilee.
quote:
Was he lying to Mary to get away from her cooties, or was she somehow tainted and less worthy than Thomas to touch him?
|
John 20:17
"Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father."
In the context, Christ wants Mary to go and tell the apostles that Christ has returned, rather than sitting and clinging on to him.
quote:
Or do you believe we can only recognize mistakes through guilt?
|
Through correction, we can recognise our mistakes, but guilt also helps us recognise when we have hurt someone.
Splitting post.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
SPLIT POST |
Right-o, I follow the split, will deal with the longer previous one later when I have more time.
quote:
Parables:
Matthew 13:13
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand." |
Whole context:
13:10
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
13:11
He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
13:12
For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13:13
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
13:14
And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
13:15
For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Seems like Jesus is saying he speaks in parables to deliberately confuse people, and therefore send them to Hell since they don't understand. Nice. 
quote:
Cite verses. I'm not sifting through these questions otherwise. Too time-consuming, and the burden is on you to show contradictions.
Also, these are off topic when discussing the merits of the resurrection accounts. |
They are on the original topic, which is Biblical contradictions/errors.
ANYhoo, I made a mistake when I said day of the month, I meant year:
Dan.1:1
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem.
Jer.25:1
In the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, that was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon.
A year makes a bit of a difference. But that's not all! This is also at odds with known history, as the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim was 606 BCE. Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king then, and didn't come to Jerusalem until 597 BCE. By that time, Jehoiachin was king, as Jehoiakim was dead.
The day of the month issue relates to the burning of the temple:
2 Kings
25:8 And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which is the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem:
25:9
And he burnt the house of the LORD, and the king's house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great man's house burnt he with fire.
Jeremiah
52:12
Now in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, which served the king of Babylon, into Jerusalem,
52:13
And burned the house of the LORD, and the king's house; and all the houses of Jerusalem, and all the houses of the great men, burned he with fire:
Did Nebuzaradan come on the 7th day, leave again and return on the 10th day, having perhaps left his wallet at home?
As for who was king at the time of the fall of Babylon, Daniel claims it was Belshazzar who was king of Babylon at the time (Dn 8:1), who is wrongly said to be the son of Nebuchadnezzar. But Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BCE and was succeeded by his son, Awil-Marduk (referred to in the bible as "Evilmerodach" [Kg 25:27 and Jer 52:31]). The next and last king of Babylon was Nabonidus who reigned from 556 to 539, when Babylon was conquered by Cyrus. It was Nabonidus, and not Belshazzar, who was the last of the Babylonian kings. Belshazzar was never a king and and was not the son (or any other relation) of Nebuchadnezzar. He was Nabonidus's son.
In addition to this, Daniel goes on to say that "Darius the Median" was the next king of the city. Who is this? As any ancient historian knows, it was Cyrus who conquered the Neo-Babylonian Empire and became the next king. There later was a Darius (521 BCE)--but this Darius was not remotely Median! The author of Daniel has bungled history quite badly.
quote:
As for KJV v. the NIV,
do you accept the portions in which they agree? I think that this is a smokescreen to avoid dealing with more fundamental issues.
What makes you trust the KJV as authoritative? |
If they agree on text, they still have to deal with internal contradictions and being at odds with history, such as the two examples above. I can even point you to one of the more famous revisions of the NIV, the question of how large Nineveh was:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mag.../2/2city92.html
quote:
There is one Bible (that I am aware of) that actually supports a variation of this latest defense, and that is the NIV (New International Version, 1978). We find in it that "Nineveh was a very important city--a visit required three days." Since the NIV is likely to become a standard among conservatives, we need to examine its treatment of Jonah 3:3.
Dr. Edward P. Blair (The Illustrated Bible Handbook, 1987) informs us that all the translators of the NIV were expected to subscribe to the "high value of Scripture" set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Belgic Confession, and the Statement of Faith of the National Association of Evangelicals. When translators are hobbled with doctrine, doctrine will hobble the translation. Indeed, Dr. Blair gives us 12 examples in the NIV where translation has been so affected. Other examples, such as Isaiah 7:14 and Genesis 2:19, may be added to that list. Even an honest conservative, such as David O'Brien (Today's Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties, 1990) will admit that doctrine has intruded in places in the NIV.
Take a few moments and look at the modern Bible translations in a large library, if you will. You will find that the NIV is the odd man out in its handling of Jonah 3:3. Its rendering of this verse appears to be based on Stuart's translation, a rendition that has little scholastic support:
"There is no merit to Stuart's translation, "requiring a three-day visit," which depends on Wiseman's incongruous weaving of Assyrian evidence regarding diplomatic visits to royal cities.... Jonah is hardly sent to Nineveh to negotiate treaties or the like" (The Anchor Bible, Jonah, 1990, p. 230).
Thus, this rendering of Jonah 3:3 may be dismissed. It is one of those places in the NIV where doctrine has overridden good translation. |
And I advocate the KJV because the KJV is widely regarded by theologians as being a more literal translation. However, there are more literal translations, such as Young's Literal. Can we agree to use that one instead?
quote:
Secondly, all the accounts agree wholly on the important points, that Christ died, rose and appeared to his followers at different times. |
Yes, but the devil is in the details. If the details are inconsistent, the stories are questionabled, especially when the text is supposedly the word of an infallible being.
Last edited by Boris Godunov on 18-06-2003 at 06:26
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Seems like Jesus is saying he speaks in parables to deliberately confuse people, and therefore send them to Hell since they don't understand.
|
Not really. Jesus speaks obliquely in the parables so that those whose hearts are open will understand the comparison. Jesus does not try to confuse, look at how carefully he has to explain the parables to the other disciples so that they fully understand! If he tried to confuse people, why would he take the steps to explain things to the disciples?
quote:
Dan.1:1
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem.
Jer.25:1
In the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, that was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon.
|
First year of Nebuchadnezzar's what? His control over Jerusalem. Jeremiah started prophesying in the first year that Nebuchadnezzar's reign over Jerusalem which should be the fourth year of Jehoiakim king of Judah.
No contradiction here.
quote:
Did Nebuzaradan come on the 7th day, leave again and return on the 10th day, having perhaps left his wallet at home?
|
Good question.
I don't know why there would be a difference in the parallel passages, though I will try to find out. It seems a minor detail. They have the year and the month correct.
quote:
who is wrongly said to be the son of Nebuchadnezzar.
|
The word 'son' here in Aramaic can also mean descendent, so no contradiction.
As for the term 'King', may also mean Viceroy.
Note Daniel 5:7
"The king called out for the enchanters, astrologers, and diviners to be brought and said to these wise men of Babylon, Whoever reads this writing and tells me what it means will be clothed in purple and have a gold chain placed around his neck, and he will be made the third highest ruler in the kingdom."
Why third and not second? Belshazzar served under Nabonidus, and could not offer his own position.
quote:
In addition to this, Daniel goes on to say that "Darius the Median" was the next king of the city. Who is this? As any ancient historian knows, it was Cyrus who conquered the Neo-Babylonian Empire and became the next king.
|
A thorny problem. Here are two different suggestions from Dr. Constable.
"However, Archer suggested that "Darius" may have been a title of honor in the Persian Empire as "Caesar" was in the Roman Empire, or, I might add, "Pharaoh" was in Egypt. If this was so, "Darius" could
refer to another man known in history by another name or names. The most likely possibility seems to me to have been Cyrus. This would account most naturally for the fact that Daniel referred to Darius as "king"
in chapter 6. Furthermore it would have been very unusual for a subordinate of Cyrus to divide the whole empire into 120 satrapies (v. 1).
Darius was probably called "the Mede" because he was of Median descent
(9:1).
Another possibility is that Darius is another name for Gubaru (Gobryas), a ruler of Babylon under Cyrus.
"In his dealings with his Babylonian subjects, Cyrus was
'king of Babylon, king of lands.' . . . But it was Gobryas the satrap who represented the royal authority after the king's [i.e., Cyrus'] departure [from Babylon]."
quote:
However, there are more literal translations, such as Young's Literal. Can we agree to use that one instead?
|
Never heard of it. Do you have any more information on the translation?
I'm leery of getting into these points, but if it increases your confidence in the historicity of scripture, than we will continue.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Not really. Jesus speaks obliquely in the parables so that those whose hearts are open will understand the comparison. Jesus does not try to confuse, look at how carefully he has to explain the parables to the other disciples so that they fully understand! If he tried to confuse people, why would he take the steps to explain things to the disciples? |
Guess he should have picked smarter disciples?
But Jesus says he speaks in parables "lest" people whose hearts are closed understand him. Why would he do this? Doesn't he want those people to understand them so they can be saved?
quote:
First year of Nebuchadnezzar's what? His control over Jerusalem. Jeremiah started prophesying in the first year that Nebuchadnezzar's reign over Jerusalem which should be the fourth year of Jehoiakim king of Judah.
No contradiction here. |
Uh, no. Jeremiah is saying the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign was the first year that Nebuchadnezzar was King of Babylon, which would mean that it would be impossible for King Nebby of Babylon to arrive at Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim's reign.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/jfb/2Ki/2Ki024.html
"1, 2. Nebuchadnezzar--the son of Nabopolassar, the founder of the Chaldee monarchy. This invasion took place in the fourth year of Jehoiakim's, and the first of Nebuchadnezzar's reign ( Jer 25:1 ; compare Jer 46:2 ).
You didn't address the historical fact that Nebby wasn't even king of Babylon in the third year of Jehoaikim's reign (606 BCE). On top of that, Nebby didn't take Jerusalem until 597 BCE. By this point, Jehoaikim was long dead.
One apologist theory is that the Babylonians came and beseiged the city in 606 BCE. This is still problematic, as there is no other historical record of this (the Babylonians would likely have noted this). It also fails to explain how Nebby could be responsible, since he wasn't king then (apologists posit it being a different Nebby who was king, but this is absurd and has not a jot of historical evidence. Nabopolassar was most certainly king of Babylon then). On top of that, even if the above were true and it was a failed seige, it would contradict the Bible, since it says rather explicitely that Nebby had control of Jerusalem at this point.
quote:
Good question.
I don't know why there would be a difference in the parallel passages, though I will try to find out. It seems a minor detail. They have the year and the month correct. |
I have a good guess: One or both of the statements is wrong. This was because, like all of the Bible, passages were cobbled together from different sources with different authors that were written at different times. Does this mean the events didn't happen? No, of course not, they are substantianted. But it does make the infallibility of the Bible rather...questionable?
quote:
The word 'son' here in Aramaic can also mean descendent, so no contradiction. |
Fanciful explanation, but do you have any evidence for this assertion, or is it wishful thinking? All standard translations say "son." If it could mean "descendant," why don't they use that to erase the apparent contradiction? Is there any other example in the Bible where this word is used to mean descendant instead of "son"?
It's still not true, as Belshazzar was of NO relation to Nebuchadnezzar.
quote:
As for the term 'King', may also mean Viceroy. |
Once again, is there any evidence to support this interpretation, or is it wishful thinking? If you're going to postulate that any word in the Bible could mean something else, I think its pretty obvious where that line of thinking leads. This would render pretty much anything in the Bible into subjective mishmash. Dangerous route.
quote:
Note Daniel 5:7
"The king called out for the enchanters, astrologers, and diviners to be brought and said to these wise men of Babylon, Whoever reads this writing and tells me what it means will be clothed in purple and have a gold chain placed around his neck, and he will be made the third highest ruler in the kingdom."
Why third and not second? Belshazzar served under Nabonidus, and could not offer his own position. |
That does not Belshazzar a king make, does it? If he was Nabonidus's viceroy, he was not the king.
quote:
A thorny problem. Here are two different suggestions from Dr. Constable.
"However, Archer suggested that "Darius" may have been a title of honor in the Persian Empire as "Caesar" was in the Roman Empire, or, I might add, "Pharaoh" was in Egypt. If this was so, "Darius" could
refer to another man known in history by another name or names. |
Again, he says "may," but does he offer a shred of proof for this assertion? The notion that "Darius" was a title is ludicrous. No historian posits this, only apologists trying to weasel out of the Bible's bad history. If "Darius" were a title, why would we subsequently have kings named "Darius"? Wouldn't that make them "Darius Darius"? Where did the title come from, since Darius ruled after Cyrus? "Pharoah" was a title, but it was never the actual name of any ruler! This explanation holds little water.
quote:
The most likely possibility seems to me to have been Cyrus. This would account most naturally for the fact that Daniel referred to Darius as "king"
in chapter 6. Furthermore it would have been very unusual for a subordinate of Cyrus to divide the whole empire into 120 satrapies (v. 1). |
I agree the king was probably Cyrus, but that the Bible is in error when it calls him Darius. Not infallible.
quote:
Darius was probably called "the Mede" because he was of Median descent
(9:1). |
I already pointed out that Darius was not Medean. The Bible is flat out wrong if it claims he was. The fact is that "Darius the Mede" appears nowhere outside of the Bible.
quote:
Another possibility is that Darius is another name for Gubaru (Gobryas), a ruler of Babylon under Cyrus.
"In his dealings with his Babylonian subjects, Cyrus was
'king of Babylon, king of lands.' . . . But it was Gobryas the satrap who represented the royal authority after the king's [i.e., Cyrus'] departure [from Babylon]." |
This is another fanciful explanation, but again, is there a shred of evidence for this? The Bible apologists seem to like to play fast and loose with names, but there's nothing to substantiate this assertion. Gobryas would never be referred to as a king, either. How would satrap Gubaru become King Darius?
Here's good commentary on the issue:
http://www.infidels.org/~ltaylor/bi...omb-darius.html
quote:
Never heard of it. Do you have any more information on the translation?
I'm leery of getting into these points, but if it increases your confidence in the historicity of scripture, than we will continue. |
http://www.ccel.org/bible/ylt/ylt.htm
I have confidence the Bible is historically accurate in many regards, but that is not the core issue--it is whether or not it is infallible. It certainly isn't, as it makes many historical errors.
To put it another way, until recently everyone assumed the events of the Iliad were fictional. Then along came the German archaelogist who excavated Troy and proved that many of the events described did indeed occur. Does that mean every event described occured? No. Does that mean the text is infallible? No. Does that mean Zeus, Hera, Ares, Athena, etc. are real and were manipulating these events? No.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-06-2003 07:18
|