NationStates Jolt Archive

What is your opinion of the Bible?

Serious responses only, please.

Feel free to elaborate if you feel that none of the options accurately reflect what you believe about the Bible.

Old Testement can be good reading. I mean, any book where a guy has an affair with a chick, and sends her husband on a suicide mission is OK in my book.

The Bible (OT) is a collection of Middle Eastern myths, put together in one place by a group of men with an agenda.

The Bible (NT) is a collection of anecdotes, all written no fewer than 50 years after the purported death of the purported Christ. These were selected from hundreds, perhaps thousands, of similar writings about the same thing(s) by a group of men with an agenda.

There are portions that I find quite offensive. It shouldn't be too difficult to guess what those portions are.

a fairly uneven collection of short stories, only a few of which really stand out as worthwhile reading. also, a few of the stories are straight repeats of previous ones. the one character that is present throughout is poorly written, inconsistently characterized, and, frankly, unbelievable. this one often improves with the transition to the big screen, but still, wait for the dvd.

I answered my view on it as a moral guide ... as a book it is meh

a fairly uneven collection of short stories, only a few of which really stand out as worthwhile reading. also, a few of the stories are straight repeats of previous ones. the one character that is present throughout is poorly written, inconsistently characterized, and, frankly, unbelievable. this one often improves with the transition to the big screen, but still, wait for the dvd.

I agree, I gave it one thumb down. It especially tended to drag towards the middle, where the authors appeared to experiment with multiple viewpoints of the same events.

Next up: The Dead Sea Scrolls.

Eh, some of the parts are a worthwhile read, but with multiple authors, it has some continuity problems. A lot of characters seem rather flat, but this God fellow has some interesting character development, going from what seems to be a rather villainous character in the original series to a somewhat more decent fellow in the newer ones, when he hooks up with this Jewish girl.

It takes quite a dramatic turn when their son dies but it ends up being a somewhat happy ending, because he gets better

A collection of fictional stories. Stories consisting of an amalgamation of pagan myths and tales all mixed together with a combination of stories passed down to the writer and or just plain made up. Many of which contradict each other. Only my opinion of course. In the end, kind of a snoozer.

The only novelty in reading the bible is to wonder about how over 2.1 billion people in this world actually believe such a thing as a book of facts.

So, good read to better understand human psyche, bad to actually believe or take it's context seriously. Unfortunate there's no such choice on the poll.

It really makes me want to bang my head on the wall when someone says we should follow certain rules (marraige is only man and woman, the liquor store is closed on sunday, treat abortion like murder) because that's what the Bible says. It's your book buddy, you follow it.

And yes, I know we don't treat abortion as murder. But there are plenty of people who would have us do so. And I still haven't found the part of the Bible where it says "Abortion is Murder!"

It really makes me want to bang my head on the wall when someone says we should follow certain rules (marraige is only man and woman, the liquor store is closed on sunday, treat abortion like murder) because that's what the Bible says. It's your book buddy, you follow it.

And yes, I know we don't treat abortion as murder. But there are plenty of people who would have us do so. And I still haven't found the part of the Bible where it says "Abortion is Murder!"

Indeed, the Bible actually seems to imply that abortion is NOT equivalent to murder. I cannot recall where the passage in question is, so I'll have to dig for it, but I seem to recall one of the parts listing punishments for various crimes-- and the punishment for hitting a woman and causing her to miscarry is less than the punishment for hitting somebody and accidentally killing them.

EDIT:
Aha!
Exodus 21:
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Seems to imply that an unborn child is not yet alive, as it seems to me that otherwise, pursuant to the command to "take life for life," the penalty for causing the miscarriage would be death.

What is your opinion of the Bible?

Serious responses only, please.

Feel free to elaborate if you feel that none of the options accurately reflect what you believe about the Bible.

I think.... ahhh hell, you'll just turn it into what I know you'll turn it into so I'll skip step one and go straight to step two and do that for ya. I'm a nice fella. :)

I belebe dat dah unchristans peeples say deh dharndest tings an dat moslem feminist are teh ebil an dat yu all shud combert!

Not really but, thats what you want to hear from me just so you can enjoy pouncing me. :rolleyes:

Ok here's what I really think. I think that there are alot of facts and alot of good lessons however due to the fact that it was written so long ago that we don't understand it to it's fullest but the people back then did. Since the bible wasn't old back in the day people could discern parable/story from record.

EDIT:
Aha!
Exodus 21:
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Seems to imply that an unborn child is not yet alive, as it seems to me that otherwise, pursuant to the command to "take life for life," the penalty for causing the miscarriage would be death.

I believe there's also a passage indicating that a fetus is not considered alive until blood begins to move through the heart, or something like that. I forget exactly, I shall have to dig as well, but whatever it was indicated that a fetus wasn't considered "alive" (and having a soul) until about 40 days.

I remember reading something about the pre-nineteenth century Catholic Church's penalties. None if it was before "quickening" or when the fetus started to move enough to be felt. Afterwards X number of Hail Marys if the fetus was a girl and about twice as many if it was a boy.

I'm not sure if I can dig that up again. But it was pretty telling about the value they placed on women.

What is your opinion of the Bible?

Serious responses only, please.

Feel free to elaborate if you feel that none of the options accurately reflect what you believe about the Bible.

It's quite pretty, especially the KJV, but it's not really much good for anything except kindling.

The Bible is a collection of myths. It's important to know the myths your culture is based upon (so read not just the Bible, but also the Theogonia, the Iliad, the Odissey, the Aeneidos etc etc), and it's important to remember that they're myths, even if they carry (sometimes) some moral teaching.

The Bible (OT) is a collection of Middle Eastern myths, put together in one place by a group of men with an agenda.

The Bible (NT) is a collection of anecdotes, all written no fewer than 50 years after the purported death of the purported Christ. These were selected from hundreds, perhaps thousands, of similar writings about the same thing(s) by a group of men with an agenda.

The Bible is a collection of myths. It's important to know the myths your culture is based upon (so read not just the Bible, but also the Theogonia, the Iliad, the Odissey, the Aeneidos etc etc), and it's important to remember that they're myths, even if they carry (sometimes) some moral teaching.

These neatly sum up how I view "the" Bible, too.

I'd add that "it" is still being re-written and tweaked by groups of people to suit their own peculiar agendas, and that's why there are so many different versions around... something that certainly seems to contradict any claim to it being some sort of infallible record of divinely-revealed Truth.

I think the KJV is fairly entertaining. You can quote it, too.

Can't really see the point of any of the others.

sex, violence, miracles and more messed up realitionships than avarage soap opera. the first fantasy book, which also get the greatest fan numbers and it is bestseller ever.
if the editor would cut some boring parts in the middle about ancient laws, it may be very good book.

It is in one of my "fantasy" bookcases. I preferred the Narnia edition.

So my opinion, not present in the poll: it is a book.

The Bible is an excellent way of finding out who is an arrogant twit and who is an ordinary person. If you hold up a copy and the person says something along the lines of 'fantasy book!', then you know they are the former, lacking in any form of respect and trying to show off. This type should be avoided.

I think the Bible is one of the most important pillars of the Christian faith. I say 'one of the most' rather than 'the only', because I do not believe that it should be taken literally, on each and every page. Rather, it is there to be taken in context; both the context of the age in which it was written, and the context of today. I do think that some people put the Bible on a pedestal too much, almost to the point of idolatry, when the most important message that we as Christians should be promoting is one of love, forgiveness and tolerance.

The Bible is an excellent way of finding out who is an arrogant twit and who is an ordinary person. If you hold up a copy and the person says something along the lines of 'fantasy book!', then you know they are the former, lacking in any form of respect and trying to show off. This type should be avoided.

*shrugs* You are of course, entitled to your opinion. I just do not see why I should show a book respect if others like it.

I think the Bible is one of the most important pillars of the Christian faith.

And a fantasybook. One does not exclude the other.
Though of course one could amend the statement to say it was an influential fantasybook.

*shrugs* You are of course, entitled to your opinion. I just do not see why I should show a book respect if others like it.
Well, if you think that's an enlightened and clever position, then knock yourself out. But personally, I can manage the almighty feat of respecting the beliefs of others even when I don't believe it myself. Maybe I'm just special.

And a fantasybook. One does not exclude the other.
Though of course one could amend the statement to say it was an influential fantasybook.
The problem with this is that not only does it make you look like the aforementioned arrogant twit, presumably thinking you impress the girls with your hardcore atheism, but it also makes you look, er, wrong. You can say many things about the Bible but 'pure fantasy' is simply not one of them - it is a historical document, if nothing else. You might not believe its bias, but that doesn't mean that it's useless as a book.

Well, if you think that's an enlightened and clever position, then knock yourself out. But personally, I can manage the almighty feat of respecting the beliefs of others even when I don't believe it myself. Maybe I'm just special.

Or maybe you and I mean something different when we say "respect". I tend to not throw that stuff around too much.

The problem with this is that not only does it make you look like the aforementioned arrogant twit, presumably thinking you impress the girls with your hardcore atheism, but it also makes you look, er, wrong. You can say many things about the Bible but 'pure fantasy' is simply not one of them - it is a historical document, if nothing else. You might not believe its bias, but that doesn't mean that it's useless as a book.

Where did I say "pure fantasy" ? I have lots of fantasynovels that contain historically accurate statements as well as the more "magical realistic" bits. Saying the Bible is not fantasy at all but completely histroically sound is just as wrong as saying it is all fantasy.

In addition, you seem to believe that "fantasybook" is an insulting term. The mere fact that I already mentioned I have several bookcases of them should indicate I do not share that opinion.

Or maybe you and I mean something different when we say "respect". I tend to not throw that stuff around too much.
I don't see why not. Everyone is entitled to at least basic respect, unless they show otherwise.

Where did I say "pure fantasy" ? I have lots of fantasynovels that contain historically accurate statements as well as the more "magical realistic" bits. Saying the Bible is not fantasy at all but completely histroically sound is just as wrong as saying it is all fantasy.
The Bible was not written as a fantasy book, it was written, by many different authors, as a historical record. To compare it to fiction in any way is nonsense - if you don't believe it, it is because you don't believe the bias of the author, not because the author has just made something up. You can compare it to a book of the Iraq War written by George Bush, but not to Tolkien. Just because you feel it is inaccurate does not make it 'fantasy'; they are two separate concepts.

In addition, you seem to believe that "fantasybook" is an insulting term. The mere fact that I already mentioned I have several bookcases of them should indicate I do not share that opinion.
Are you being serious? You really don't expect Christians to be insulted by your calling the Bible 'fantasy'?

Well, if you think that's an enlightened and clever position, then knock yourself out. But personally, I can manage the almighty feat of respecting the beliefs of others even when I don't believe it myself. Maybe I'm just special.


The problem with this is that not only does it make you look like the aforementioned arrogant twit, presumably thinking you impress the girls with your hardcore atheism, but it also makes you look, er, wrong. You can say many things about the Bible but 'pure fantasy' is simply not one of them - it is a historical document, if nothing else. You might not believe its bias, but that doesn't mean that it's useless as a book.

You're missing his point. It is possible to respect a person's entitlement to faith without buying into it. I wholeheartedly support a person's right to believe what they want, and it's something I will fight to defend. But, that doesn't mean I personally believe it. I believe the bible is a compilation of stolen and/or fabricated stories. From a purely parable-based perspective, it certainly has it's points, but it is a poor transcript, as a historical document is concerned.

Labeling a person "arrogant twit" simply because they don't believe what you believe is practicing what you're accusing, and is held in no higher regard by those who don't subscribe to your belief system.

What is your opinion of the Bible?

Serious responses only, please.

Feel free to elaborate if you feel that none of the options accurately reflect what you believe about the Bible.

I think it's a nice piece of literature. Good stories, lots of sex, gore, violence, natural disasters, smiting gods, etc. Very good prose in places, very lousy in others. The style overall is not very conductive to the plot.

That said, no, I don't think I'd recommend it. There are books out there who went for a little less plot, but a little better style and are overall more enjoyable to read.

I selected "more harm than good" not so much for the quality of the literature, but for the mindset of its average reader. It can wreak havoc in the minds of somewhat unstable individuals, with very unfortunate consquences.

Well, if you think that's an enlightened and clever position, then knock yourself out. But personally, I can manage the almighty feat of respecting the beliefs of others even when I don't believe it myself. Maybe I'm just special.

Hey, lots of people believe in lots of things... I respect that, but it doesn't make ME respect those things.


The problem with this is that not only does it make you look like the aforementioned arrogant twit, presumably thinking you impress the girls with your hardcore atheism, but it also makes you look, er, wrong. You can say many things about the Bible but 'pure fantasy' is simply not one of them - it is a historical document, if nothing else. You might not believe its bias, but that doesn't mean that it's useless as a book.

Well... "pure fantasy" as in "all made up" is probably incorrect. But then again, so is "historical document" in the sense of describing actual events. Pliny's description of the eruption of mount Vesuvius is a historical document, Cesar's "De Bello Gallico" is a historical document. The bible? Not so much.
It does give a good picture of the mindset of an ancient Mesopotamian culture, certainly. And it allows an inshight into social structures, lifestyle and cultural development of this particular group of people.
However, where its description of historical events are concerned, it's less than reliable.

My opinion of the bible?

BORING!

But hey, I havent a problem if you believe the book. Everyone needs an escape from their fear of death, and I guess the bible provides that.

Hey, lots of people believe in lots of things... I respect that, but it doesn't make ME respect those things.



Well... "pure fantasy" as in "all made up" is probably incorrect. But then again, so is "historical document" in the sense of describing actual events. Pliny's description of the eruption of mount Vesuvius is a historical document, Cesar's "De Bello Gallico" is a historical document. The bible? Not so much.
It does give a good picture of the mindset of an ancient Mesopotamian culture, certainly. And it allows an inshight into social structures, lifestyle and cultural development of this particular group of people.
However, where its description of historical events are concerned, it's less than reliable.

But what I really wish to know is, is it true then, do you impress the girls with your hardcore atheism?:salute:

My opinion of the Bible. It's mostly rubbish, I am sure that there are some real gems that honestly have been divinely inspired, but it has been tapered with far too much to belive that is is truely the word of God and not truely the word of God twisted to suit the wants of man.

I don't see why not. Everyone is entitled to at least basic respect, unless they show otherwise.
Then we indeed define respect differently. I show everyone neutrality. Disrespect and respect have to be earned.

The Bible was not written as a fantasy book, it was written, by many different authors, as a historical record.
To compare it to fiction in any way is nonsense - if you don't believe it, it is because you don't believe the bias of the author, not because the author has just made something up.

Is Homers Odyssea fantasy or a historical document ?
Answer: both.
And feel free to prove the authors of the Bible wanted to write a completely accurate historical document, with no parables and such at all.

You can compare it to a book of the Iraq War written by George Bush, but not to Tolkien. Just because you feel it is inaccurate does not make it 'fantasy'; they are two separate concepts.

Was that true 2000 years ago ?
Answer: almost certainly not.

Are you being serious? You really don't expect Christians to be insulted by your calling the Bible 'fantasy'?

If they are insulted by facts, that is their problem - not mine. I refuse to submit to lying just to spare their feelings.

If they are insulted by facts, that is their problem - not mine. I refuse to submit to lying just to spare their feelings.

That is too true.

But what I really wish to know is, is it true then, do you impress the girls with your hardcore atheism?:salute:

Always depends on the hardcore atheist. ;)
I don't like blind followers, no matter what they follow.

And now on the dirty network, Hardcore Atheism...

The Old Testament is prehistoric and lame. It should be banned.

The New Testament contains very good parts; i mean Jesus was a great philosopher and prophet.
But of course he was not the 'Son of God' since God does not exist.

Always depends on the hardcore atheist. ;)
I don't like blind followers, no matter what they follow.

Well true, whats the point in a blind follower. I mean supposed you turned a sharp corner and lost them? Umm of course they might have them there seeing eye dogs, or as we Brits like to call them, guide dogs.

What I used to use to impress the girls was my cheeky smile and my twinkly eyes, then I got married and the wife tells me off if she cathes me using then anymore. Ho hum, such is life.

The Old Testament is prehistoric and lame. It should be banned.

The New Testament contains very good parts; i mean Jesus was a great philosopher and prophet.
But of course he was not the 'Son of God' since God does not exist.

Does so!:eek:

Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The arguement goes something like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.

HAH! Proof to all!

Song of Solomon was an interesting way to sneak erotic poetry into a religious text.

HAH! Proof to all!

Hehe... when in doubt, turn to Douglas Adams.

Or to Terry Pratchett, if you prefer ;)

Song of Solomon was an interesting way to sneak erotic poetry into a religious text.

True, although I have to admit that the erotic imagery has somewhat lost after a few millenia. I never got the bit about the roe deer twins....

Well... "pure fantasy" as in "all made up" is probably incorrect. But then again, so is "historical document" in the sense of describing actual events. Pliny's description of the eruption of mount Vesuvius is a historical document, Cesar's "De Bello Gallico" is a historical document. The bible? Not so much.
Why not? Your only evidence that it is not an accurate description is that you don't believe it to be true. Hardly a firm basis for academic discussion.

It does give a good picture of the mindset of an ancient Mesopotamian culture, certainly. And it allows an inshight into social structures, lifestyle and cultural development of this particular group of people.
However, where its description of historical events are concerned, it's less than reliable.
Again, what is your evidence of this? You might not believe that Jesus turned water into wine, but how do you disprove that he was at the wedding? Or that he was born, raised and was crucified?

You can argue that it puts its own spin on things; did the disciples understand each other because of the Holy Spirit, or because some guy called George at the back could speak different languages? But whether these events actually happened, well, I have a book written at or around the time to prove the events, while to disprove it you have, well, nothing.

Is Homers Odyssea fantasy or a historical document?
Answer: both.

And feel free to prove the authors of the Bible wanted to write a completely accurate historical document, with no parables and such at all.
Homer has written a poem, which can be looked into in order to learn about events of the time. It is very useful as a historical document. It is, however, clearly intended to be a poem (not, incidentally, a 'fantasy' - there is evidence that the wars actually occurred), while the Bible is clearly intended to be a record. They are, quite simply, written in different ways.

Feel free to disprove it. I'm afraid that like my answer to Cabra, the burden of proof is on you; you are the one saying that the text is something other than what it claims to be.

they are insulted by facts, that is their problem - not mine. I refuse to submit to lying just to spare their feelings.
Oh, my feelings are quite intact, thank you. I'd be more worried about your own feelings, if I were you; one day, you're going to feel quite the fool when you look back at this and realise that perhaps the things you're saying aren't half as clever as you think they are.

1010102, Accelerating Returns, Londsraad, ShadowFerrets and Xomic all voted that they think that whoever believes in the bible should be shot.

Wow.

I am no Christian, in fact, those who know me well have often noted my hostility to the religion... but wow.

Saying people should be shot, for believing the words out of a book. For the crime of being gullible. If say, someone believed Lord of the Rings to be literally true, I would think they were delusional, or at least very strange. But thinking they should be shot? That's just a bit extreme. I'm a bit disappointed. I didn't think so many people held such little regard for freedom of opinion.

Overall I'd g with the top one. However, I think we should remember that some parts were written for other eras.

E.G. We Don't need to Stone Adulterers To Death.

Or

Drown The Priests of Baal.

Or

Persecute Homosexuals.

Or

Build Arks

You can't just choose not to believe certain parts of the bible. If you believe in it you have to follow it all, or it just proves you are using it to escape your fear of death.

You can't just choose not to believe certain parts of the bible. If you believe in it you have to follow it all, or it just proves you are using it to escape your fear of death.

Well, thank you for that expert and informed opinion. Did you come up with it all on your own?

Well, thank you for that expert and informed opinion. Did you come up with it all on your own?

You just blew up my sarcasm detector.

Well, I'm a catholic, but even though I go to church each sunday (my mother made me do it), there are some moral messages in the bible.
Although it gives you a limit of freedom, and if I could I'd still be a catholic, but just as a tag, I'd mostly like to stay neutral. It gives me freedom.
Who is god, what is it? That's what I've been asking everytime I make a cross... But in my country, not having a religion means to F*** Off! Even though all the religous and the holders of the bible are more often to become... A hypocrite. Or even a fanatic.
Better to stay lunatic.

to a somewhat more decent fellow in the newer ones

Come on, Revelation?

*snip*

But if you believe the Bible is the literal word of God, how can you question it so?

Don't you remember when God says that no one is permitted to add or diminish anything in the laws?

(What the hell did Paul think he was playing at, anyway?)

I think the Bible is pretty much exactly what I'd expect a 2000-year-old compilation of short stories to be.

It's got some great stories, and some not-so-great stories. It's lost something in translation over the years, but it's also gained a bit of the flavor of every translator's culture. It's got some poetry, some novel ideas, and also some fun folk legends. It's got some horrible crap and some pretty vile ideas. More than anything else, it's a window into How Things Were way back when.

I don't think it's the Word of God. I think it is a book. I like books. I think books are worth reading. I think the Bible is an important book and is worth reading, particularly if you are interested in understanding the millions of people who DO believe it is the Word of God.

I think the Bible is pretty much exactly what I'd expect a 2000-year-old compilation of short stories to be.

It's got some great stories, and some not-so-great stories. It's lost something in translation over the years, but it's also gained a bit of the flavor of every translator's culture. It's got some poetry, some novel ideas, and also some fun folk legends. It's got some horrible crap and some pretty vile ideas. More than anything else, it's a window into How Things Were way back when.

I don't think it's the Word of God. I think it is a book. I like books. I think books are worth reading. I think the Bible is an important book and is worth reading, particularly if you are interested in understanding the millions of people who DO believe it is the Word of God.

It's a very mixed bag. Very very mixed. But yes, a book of historical interest.

Why not? Your only evidence that it is not an accurate description is that you don't believe it to be true. Hardly a firm basis for academic discussion.

Again, what is your evidence of this? You might not believe that Jesus turned water into wine, but how do you disprove that he was at the wedding? Or that he was born, raised and was crucified?

Missing evidence and contradicting evidence from other sources?
Such as the Egyptians not having any mention of Israelite slaves whatsoever, let alone a massive exodus of said people?
Such as no Roman records regarding the counting of everybody in the Roman Empire (and knowing how much the Romans loved their burocracy, you'd think a massive undertaking like that would leave some records behind)?
Such as no geological or biological evidence of a worldwide flood?

As I said, interesting stories, some of them surely with a grain of truth somewhere in the thick of it, but not exactly a reliable, accurate historical document.



You can argue that it puts its own spin on things; did the disciples understand each other because of the Holy Spirit, or because some guy called George at the back could speak different languages? But whether these events actually happened, well, I have a book written at or around the time to prove the events, while to disprove it you have, well, nothing.

I don't need to. See above.
There are plenty of books that were written at or around the same time, books about the Roman and Greek gods, books about Mithras, books like the Mahabarata, the Baghvadgita and many many many more.
Among all those books about deities and their assumed actions, can you tell me why the bible would be fact, while the rest are fiction? Or do you expect us to take them all as fact, because we can't prove they're fiction?
Can you prove the Chronicles of Narnia are in fact fiction rather than fact?

You cannot ever prove that something is fictional. However, as in the case with Russell's teapot, some things have so little evidence going for them that it's safe to assume they're fictional.
And a single book is precious little evidence indeed.

Homer has written a poem, which can be looked into in order to learn about events of the time. It is very useful as a historical document. It is, however, clearly intended to be a poem (not, incidentally, a 'fantasy' - there is evidence that the wars actually occurred), while the Bible is clearly intended to be a record. They are, quite simply, written in different ways.

You still seem unable to grasp that a "fantasy" work can contain non-fantasy elements. Quite possibly the wars occured, yes. Quite possibly Ulysses participated in them and even wasted quite a few years of his life travelling and getting home.
Does that mean he truly met the one-eyed giants ? No, of course not.
But why would people disbelieve him if he told them he did ? The world was largely unexplored, millions of things unknown. Strange animals from faraway places did exist - after all, emperors sometimes brought them over.
Why not believe in a cyclops then ? Or a man who got resurrected ? The gods after all obviously existed.
Why doubt a strange tale ? Hell - why even consider the tale strange ?

Feel free to disprove it. I'm afraid that like my answer to Cabra, the burden of proof is on you; you are the one saying that the text is something other than what it claims to be.
Why ? I am not the one claiming the fantastic stories of people using magical powers to split seas, being attacked by armies of zombies, come back from the dead and turn water into wine are all true. Reality teaches us these things simply do not happen that often. As such, one needs convincing evidence they did. A single book, written in times where mixing fact and fiction was the de facto standard , does not count as convincing.


Oh, my feelings are quite intact, thank you. I'd be more worried about your own feelings, if I were you; one day, you're going to feel quite the fool when you look back at this and realise that perhaps the things you're saying aren't half as clever as you think they are.

I am not assuming cleverness at all. I just consider your "glorify lying to be nice to others" philosophy to be morally repugnant.But it is your right to adhere to it. I just recommend you broaden you reading horizons a bit and read some more fantasyworks. Magical realism would probably even be of some interest to you.

Edit: for extra clarification:
If I know someone deeply cares about an object I myself ascribe no value to, I would not steal that object and destroy it in front of that person unless they really, really pissed me off. I would in fact treat the object with care, just as much care as I would like to see them use with objects I value.
However, I will not pretend that the object is valuable to me. I will not call it by a different name, or pretend the object is something that it is not. I will just acknowledge the importance it has to that person.

Christainity:
The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

Missing evidence and contradicting evidence from other sources?
Such as the Egyptians not having any mention of Israelite slaves whatsoever, let alone a massive exodus of said people?
Such as no Roman records regarding the counting of everybody in the Roman Empire (and knowing how much the Romans loved their burocracy, you'd think a massive undertaking like that would leave some records behind)?
Such as no geological or biological evidence of a worldwide flood?

Showing your bias there a bit? There are Egyptian stories of Egypt 'exodus' events, the Expulsion of the Hyksos comes to mind. The Roman empire DID leave substantial amounts of evidence of Roman world Census reports for the first three centuries in the middle east, if this wasn't true, we would know almost nothing about the traditional demographics of Egypt and Greece during the roman period, but the Romans left us over three hundred surviving census returns (http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521025966)in Egypt from the time period in question which shows your statement to be incorrect. And the entire world shows signs of flooding, only you don't think it happened all at the same time so you don't link them together, but every mountain range in the world has sea shells and sea life remains found in rocks and crevasses near their peaks. Clearly you exaggerate when you say there is no evidence, you just don't find the evidence convincing, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence.


And a single book is precious little evidence indeed.

A single book? Which single book were you thinking of? There are over seventy books in the Bible I have on my bookshelf.

Do you know what famous person did not believe that the Bible was the absolute irrefutable word of God?

Jesus. *nod*

There wasn't really a poll option for my position.

See the thing is, the Bible is the Word of God but it's been copied, translated, copied, translated wash, rinse, repeat for centuries. What we have now has been through the telephone game so I think tihs sums it up the best:



We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

human ink on human paper. a compilation by a committee, several committees actually, the first conviening of which resulted in considerable dessention and even bloodshed. it was only after the attendies of the first attempt to standardise the 'christian' library, which in time came to be published as THE book, as it is called today, had lived their natural course, that the subsiquent was able to be conviened.

the latter half of that book having been written ABOUT a person who may, perhapse likely was, a channeller, of something much greater then any of us, yet that written four of his cadre who seem to lived inside the hyper bowle. the remainder of that portion having been written by someone, one particular someone who had started out to condem the very fallowers of that belief, and supposedly converted to it, having indeed been instrumental in its popularization, none the less born after the supposedly last part of it had been written, and thus by its own standards in violation of them, thus the dessention and bloodshed in which the first attempt at its standardization had ended in.

for those unfamiliar with these things i of course refer to the confrences in 380 something the first one, and the second arround 450 or so, i'm terrible at remembering the exact dates of anything, and the person who'se missives contradict the inhibition of revilations by even being there, of course saul of tarsus, who suppposedly became, supposedly before writing them, the so call 'saint' paul.

at rate it is a book, compiled of many earlier writings, some of which may even predate judaism, old testiment phylosophers, kings and other near do wells, i mean by that, not what came to be its central theme, yet even those borrowing earlier themes that may well hark back to akanatan's early experiment in monotheism that ended so unfotunately for his fallowers fallowing his own demise.

matter it spoke of may be real in part or in whole, at least those it is actually speaking of, rather then all else it has been conjectured to be, yet there remains about it a certain inadiquacy as a treatse on the matter of its subject or subjects.

and at last, when all is said and done, however lofty some or much of its source material might be, remains human ink, imprinted upon human paper, and NOT the 'living embodyment' of mysterious forces beyond our comprehension (as it's fanatics of today are often heard to claim).

=^^=
.../\...

Do you know what famous person did not believe that the Bible was the absolute irrefutable word of God?

Jesus. *nod*

Jesus was a damn hippie.

Do you know what famous person did not believe that the Bible was the absolute irrefutable word of God?

Jesus. *nod*

And that's why, with this kind of wisdom, you'll always be our NSG Pie God!!:hail::fluffle:

I think the bible is a pretty cool guy. eh has really thin pages and doesn't afraid of anything.

I think the bible is a pretty cool guy. eh has really thin pages and doesn't afraid of anything.

Plus... it's pages are just awesome for rolling blunts.

*runs away before the stoning of the zealots begins*

I am a christian but not a conventional one. I believe that all religions should get along and EVERYONE is equal. I believe that Gay people should have equal rights (If god love everyone then? and that al religions have truth within (I think Buddhism is a very true religion). Anyway I think that alot of the old testament is disgusting (against women and gays) and I believe that genesis is a story to explain why we are here as they did not have the science then.
However Jesus did exist and his morals have stood the test of time and we still base our society upon them therfore I think Christians should concentrate mainly on the new testament. (The morals of jesus)

My opinion about the bible?

The bible is mostly lies, put in for propaganda reasons. However, there is truth in it, mostly in the four gospels and the beginning parts of genesis. There is also some historical accuracy in the old testament, but the prophets in there are all propaganda, or merely insane. Paul was a liar.


That about sums it up.

I believe that the Bible is the written word of God. It is def. inspired. I believe that it isn't complete yet, though. There has been 2000 years without a revelation from God? Seriously? A little insane. I also believe that too many worship the Bible. I for one, do not. I know its only the WRITTEN word of God. I focus a lot more on the LIVING Word of God.:)

Do you know what famous person did not believe that the Bible was the absolute irrefutable word of God?

Jesus. *nod*

How do you get that?

How do you get that?

Because the Bible didn't exist until after his death, I assume.

Because the Bible didn't exist until after his death, I assume.

The New Testament didn't, but all of the Tanakh did. He knew old school scripture, which is why he quoted it a lot. And also, being God-incarnate gives you the power to know everything, and surely with that power He knew what would be put in the NT, and he didn't do anything to stop the writers from writing it.

My issue is with Noah's ark. Ok, so you've got 7 of every clean beast, and 2 of every dirty beast, all packed into a boat the size of asia. Then THAT is tugging a 5 mile long wharehouse containing all the food and supplies you are gonna need. And where are you gonna get all the manpower to feed these animals?

I sense somthing wrong here...

My issue is with Noah's ark. Ok, so you've got 7 of every clean beast, and 2 of every dirty beast, all packed into a boat the size of asia. Then THAT is tugging a 5 mile long wharehouse containing all the food and supplies you are gonna need. And where are you gonna get all the manpower to feed these animals?

I sense somthing wrong here...

God's power. :). But who says they had all the animals we have now back then?;)

My issue is with Noah's ark. Ok, so you've got 7 of every clean beast, and 2 of every dirty beast, all packed into a boat the size of asia. Then THAT is tugging a 5 mile long wharehouse containing all the food and supplies you are gonna need. And where are you gonna get all the manpower to feed these animals?

I sense somthing wrong here...

I don't believe in a global flood. The word used was eretz, which means land, nation, place, etc, iirc. This leads me to believe that the flood was local, and maybe maybe noah grabbed animals in his area, and put them on there. It would make more sense that way. Still a little far fetched, I agree.

The New Testament didn't, but all of the Tanakh did. He knew old school scripture, which is why he quoted it a lot.
That isn't really the bible though, is it?
And also, being God-incarnate gives you the power to know everything, and surely with that power He knew what would be put in the NT, and he didn't do anything to stop the writers from writing it.
God doesn't stop murderers either.
My issue is with Noah's ark. Ok, so you've got 7 of every clean beast, and 2 of every dirty beast, all packed into a boat the size of asia. Then THAT is tugging a 5 mile long wharehouse containing all the food and supplies you are gonna need. And where are you gonna get all the manpower to feed these animals?

I sense somthing wrong here...

I'm not sure where, possibly in one of the 'Why people laugh at creationists' videos, I heard that insects and fist weren't included on the ark because only animals with nostrils were brought on. Thing is, whales have nostrils.

I don't believe in a global flood. The word used was eretz, which means land, nation, place, etc, iirc. This leads me to believe that the flood was local, and maybe maybe noah grabbed animals in his area, and put them on there. It would make more sense that way. Still a little far fetched, I agree.

according to what I read, the story relates to an arabic flood. A prince loaded all his possesions and sailed downstream. An act of greed spawning such a tale. How amusing. Sorry but I don't have a source.

God's power. :). But who says they had all the animals we have now back then?;)

I got in an argument with an AiG guy, about all the animals and stuff. I was like "How did Noah get all the Kangaroos from Australia? All the cougars from the the Americas? How about seals and penguins? How did he get all of those things, being thousands of miles away from them. He couldn't answer that, nor when I asked how the animals got to where they are now. Did they have a magic road that spanned the globe for all the animals to cross? It doesn't make any sense at all.

God's power. :). But who says they had all the animals we have now back then?;)

Well, IF the story is true...

4,000 years is no where NEAR long enough for enough new species to emerge through natural selection for that to even be a significant factor.

So where did all the other animals come from?

That isn't really the bible though, is it? Its a large part of the bible. It was what the early Christians considered as scripture. Good enough for me

God doesn't stop murderers either.
There is a difference here. I kill a guy, does it affect people thousands of years down the road, does it? Conversely, you have some jag writing a bunch of shit that's not true, which could affect the lives of billions for thousands of years, and I think God will make sure that doesn't happen. Besides, who is not to say that God hasn't stopped murder before? He could have influenced circumstances to stop a person from murdering another.

Its a large part of the bible. It was what the early Christians considered as scripture. Good enough for me*shrug*

There is a difference here. I kill a guy, does it affect people thousands of years down the road, does it? Conversely, you have some jag writing a bunch of shit that's not true, which could affect the lives of billions for thousands of years, and I think God will make sure that doesn't happen.
Makes sense
Besides, who is not to say that God hasn't stopped murder before? He could have influenced circumstances to stop a person from murdering another.

That there are murders suggest he is not stopping all of them.

Well, IF the story is true...

4,000 years is no where NEAR long enough for enough new species to emerge through natural selection for that to even be a significant factor.

So where did all the other animals come from?

*sigh*

First off, you're assuming it's four thousand. I say it could be anywhere to four thousand to twenty thousand. Second off:

This. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html)
Example one:

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.

(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

Example two:

Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)

(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)

Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719

Example three:

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)

Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Example four:

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.

(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Leroy Jenkins Press. p. 348

That there are murders suggest he is not stopping all of them.

Which would show that He does give a crap load of free will to mankind. Why? Not because He is a spiteful God that wants us to destroy ourselves, but ultimately to show us that on our own we are no good. On our own, we commit genocide, murder, hate crimes, and so on. But with God as our guide (i'm talking real religion, not Christianity from the medieval ages) we are to live as peaceful, loving, and tolerant of all others (tolerant means accept that others believe different, even if you don't accept their beliefs as true). That is really the bible in a nutshell.

Well, IF the story is true...

4,000 years is no where NEAR long enough for enough new species to emerge through natural selection for that to even be a significant factor.

So where did all the other animals come from?

and WHY did all the koalas, kangaroos, platypi, etc rush off the boat and run to australia leaving no trace of themselves on the journey over there? think of the poor swimming koalas!

Which would show that He does give a crap load of free will to mankind. Why? Not because He is a spiteful God that wants us to destroy ourselves, but ultimately to show us that on our own we are no good. On our own, we commit genocide, murder, hate crimes, and so on. But with God as our guide (i'm talking real religion, not Christianity from the medieval ages) we are to live as peaceful, loving, and tolerant of all others (tolerant means accept that others believe different, even if you don't accept their beliefs as true). That is really the bible in a nutshell.

So God created us so we'd kill each other and realise that we're shit and then decide to do what he says?


I would have just made us not-shit, but maybe I'm weird like that.

So God created us so we'd kill each other and realise that we're shit and then decide to do what he says?


I would have just made us not-shit, but maybe I'm weird like that.

No, you are thinking to negatively. We of course are made in His image. Made perfect at first, but it is inevitable that through living on this earth we are going to turn into shit,if you will, at some point. No one is capable of living perfectly, right? So, that's why Jesus came, to turn us from shit, into a bed of roses. But occasionally, we as roses start to smell bad, or hurt someone with our thorns. Repentance comes into play, to make us once again, appear as something good.

Do you know what famous person did not believe that the Bible was the absolute irrefutable word of God?

Jesus. *nod*

This isn't about Jesus, it's about Christianity.

Aha!
Exodus 21:
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Seems to imply that an unborn child is not yet alive, as it seems to me that otherwise, pursuant to the command to "take life for life," the penalty for causing the miscarriage would be death.

Your self-pwn is bolded, this passage mentions birth... if the baby (for whatever reason) is born prematurely due to the fight, no biggie... the baby didn't die, but if (second bolded part) there is serious injury, then one should take a life for life. Now, this isn't a specifically pro-life passage, because the wording is not directly very clear, but it is far from: "And God, whose voice shone down gloriously from the Heaven's, His Spirit being in, and with us had decreed aloud, in no uncertain terms that the 'killing' of an unborn fetus be not murder, but rather the most Godly act!'" (Fakeronomy 7:32)

Also, you are completely abandoning the NT... which is pretty much what the Bible is. The OT is really more of historical (debate if you will) and cultural background, along with moral lessons... the real value of the message of the Bible is to be found in the NT, I notice the NT did not mention Judaism as being examined, so we must assume that it is the Christian messages of the Bible, and Jesus effectively changes the 'eye for eye' attitude when He says things like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." or "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." and "if a man does not forgive his brother, the Father will not forgive him"

Please, take a course on Bible literacy, it would really help any future arguments you make.

[/:soap:]

EDIT: Actually, re-reading the first bolded part in conjunction with the second part seems to pretty strongly suggest that if the fetus dies (or even suffers damage) then that should be returned to the offender... now, maybe I'm just crazy like this, but it seems to me that most punishments follow things that are wrong. But hey, what do I know, I can't contend with you giving verses to completely disprove your own point. (nice)

and WHY did all the koalas, kangaroos, platypi, etc rush off the boat and run to australia leaving no trace of themselves on the journey over there? think of the poor swimming koalas!

God directed them to do this so that you would ask this question. It's similar to fate, in it's own way.

and WHY did all the koalas, kangaroos, platypi, etc rush off the boat and run to australia leaving no trace of themselves on the journey over there? think of the poor swimming koalas!

The platypus is absolute proof that God has a sense of humor.

The platypus is absolute proof that God has a sense of humor.

or that he subcontracted a few of the jobs to the lowest bidder.

And the entire world shows signs of flooding, only you don't think it happened all at the same time so you don't link them together, but every mountain range in the world has sea shells and sea life remains found in rocks and crevasses near their peaks.

this is too dumb for words

learn2geology

In my opinion, the Bible is a set of books written over alarge period of time detailing the mythology, history and experiences with the divine of the Jews and the early Christians. This collection of books may be divinely inspired, but it was definitely written, edited, compiled and translated by humans.

It is one of the most influential books of western civilisation, and is a useful historical document.

I like the erotic poetry.

I'm Christian, in name mostly, and really haven't read the bible
Though some of the stories I've read are very good moral stories
I hate those bible bashers who take it too literally though

Showing your bias there a bit? There are Egyptian stories of Egypt 'exodus' events, the Expulsion of the Hyksos comes to mind.

From what I can tell, that theory is rather disputed.
Besides, you'd think the bible might mention Israelite kings of Egypt, wouldn't you?

The Roman empire DID leave substantial amounts of evidence of Roman world Census reports for the first three centuries in the middle east, if this wasn't true, we would know almost nothing about the traditional demographics of Egypt and Greece during the roman period, but the Romans left us over three hundred surviving census returns (http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521025966)in Egypt from the time period in question which shows your statement to be incorrect.


The Gospel of Luke also mentions Quirinius in the infancy narrative of Jesus:

In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child. (Luke 2:1-7—NRSV)

This passage has long been considered problematic by Biblical scholars, since it appears to place the birth of Jesus around the time of the census in AD 6, whereas the Gospel of Matthew indicates a birth during or just after the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC, ten years earlier.[14] In addition, no other sources mention a world-wide (accurately, "the world under the authority of Roman"[15]) census which would cover the population as a whole; those of Augustus covered Roman citizens only;[16] and it was not the practice in Roman censuses to require people to return to their ancestral homes.[17]

Most modern scholars explain the disparity as an error on the part of the author of the Gospel, concluding that he was more concerned with creating a symbolic narrative than a historical account,[18] and was either unaware of, or indifferent to,[19] the chronological difficulty. Many also suggest that the Gospel of Matthew account is invented.[20]

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius#The_census_in_the_New_Testament)


Not quite on the mark, I'm afraid...


And the entire world shows signs of flooding, only you don't think it happened all at the same time so you don't link them together, but every mountain range in the world has sea shells and sea life remains found in rocks and crevasses near their peaks.

Yes, I know. People longe believed that to be evidence. Until some clever sod came along and pointed out that how come you can find different sea shells and sea life fossils in different layers, and how come the layers in once part of the earth show sea shells in a certain period and others desert life?

Clearly you exaggerate when you say there is no evidence, you just don't find the evidence convincing, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence.

There is evidence at first glance, but it has this awkward tendency to crumble under closer inspection, see....



A single book? Which single book were you thinking of? There are over seventy books in the Bible I have on my bookshelf.

And there are hundreds others out there from the same period claiming different events... why believe yours more than the others?

or that he subcontracted a few of the jobs to the lowest bidder.

lawl!

So God created us so we'd kill each other and realise that we're shit and then decide to do what he says?


I would have just made us not-shit, but maybe I'm weird like that.

I've been wondering about that argument a lot recently. It sometimes comes pared with the "Ah, but to god, we're nothing but children. We don't know how to look after ourselves, so he gave us rules. He can break them, cause he's the "adult", but we can't because we can't understand why we need them..."

Which makes me wonder, what sort of a parent leaves kids that are too young to understand the rules they're given by themselves without supervision, and then punishes them when they don't obey?

I've been wondering about that argument a lot recently. It sometimes comes pared with the "Ah, but to god, we're nothing but children. We don't know how to look after ourselves, so he gave us rules. He can break them, cause he's the "adult", but we can't because we can't understand why we need them..."

Which makes me wonder, what sort of a parent leaves kids that are too young to understand the rules they're given by themselves without supervision, and then punishes them when they don't obey?

My Answer: That's why we've got the rulebook ;)

I believe that the Bible is the written word of God. It is def. inspired. I believe that it isn't complete yet, though. There has been 2000 years without a revelation from God? Seriously? A little insane. I also believe that too many worship the Bible. I for one, do not. I know its only the WRITTEN word of God. I focus a lot more on the LIVING Word of God.:)

1400 years.

A fine piece of speculative fiction, badly told and in need of a good editor.

My Answer: That's why we've got the rulebook ;)

You've got kids... would you have left them alone next to a busy street when they were too young to understand WHY they should not run into the street?

A fine piece of speculative fiction, badly told and in need of a good editor.

Well, yes and no.
See, some bits of it are rather good from a literary point of view. Although you are right in that most of it is just really, really bad style.

Showing your bias there a bit? There are Egyptian stories of Egypt 'exodus' events, the Expulsion of the Hyksos comes to mind. The Roman empire DID leave substantial amounts of evidence of Roman world Census reports for the first three centuries in the middle east, if this wasn't true, we would know almost nothing about the traditional demographics of Egypt and Greece during the roman period, but the Romans left us over three hundred surviving census returns (http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521025966)in Egypt from the time period in question which shows your statement to be incorrect. And the entire world shows signs of flooding, only you don't think it happened all at the same time so you don't link them together, but every mountain range in the world has sea shells and sea life remains found in rocks and crevasses near their peaks. Clearly you exaggerate when you say there is no evidence, you just don't find the evidence convincing, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence.



A single book? Which single book were you thinking of? There are over seventy books in the Bible I have on my bookshelf.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE source! (on the flood that is)

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE source! (on the flood that is)

Oh, please don't.
It's bound to be something from the Flat Earth Society....

Oh, please don't.
It's bound to be something from the Flat Earth Society....

lol rigggght forgot bout them :(

Oh, please don't.
It's bound to be something from the Flat Earth Society....

Um, riiiight.

I source you with Cambridge Studies in Population, Economy and Society in Past Time for information about Roman Census and census data collection from the same time period, and you source me with a wiki article that erroneously claims that only roman citizens were counted in the census. And yet, you posture a pompous tone and pretend I'm the one providing flawed sources. :rolleyes:

I think the fact that God, a perfect being, made us so distinctly and disturbingly flawed is proof that He not only has a sense of humor, but a dark twisted sense of humor. :)

Um, riiiight.

I source you with Cambridge Studies in Population, Economy and Society in Past Time for information about Roman Census and census data collection from the same time period, and you source me with a wiki article that erroneously claims that only roman citizens were counted in the census. And yet, you posture a pompous tone and pretend I'm the one providing flawed sources. :rolleyes:

This from the guy who has argued that the Gospels are eyewitness testimony?

Um, riiiight.

I source you with Cambridge Studies in Population, Economy and Society in Past Time for information about Roman Census and census data collection from the same time period, and you source me with a wiki article that erroneously claims that only roman citizens were counted in the census. And yet, you posture a pompous tone and pretend I'm the one providing flawed sources. :rolleyes:

oh and did the romans do a universal census at the right time and did they require jews to go to an ancestral town to be counted?

(was it a link? id like to look at it)

neither cause jesus was an extraterrestrial and thus the bible didn't happen on earth.

oh and did the romans do a universal census at the right time and did they require jews to go to an ancestral town to be counted?

(was it a link? id like to look at it)

A rather large .pdf except from the book I linked to previously, tells what information can be gained from the Egyptian Census returns collected under Roman rule. here (http://assets.cambridge.org/97805210/25966/excerpt/9780521025966_excerpt.pdf) The original link I posted to was the book title from the catalogue, here (http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521025966)

Which 'right time' are you thinking of for the 'universal census?' The census was done in Egypt every fourteen years reliably, every seven years seemingly while under certain Caesars like Augustus, and the census, although universally covering the Roman empire, does not seem to mean that it was done during the same year in Gaul (for example) as it was in Egypt and Palestine, but which year do you think it is required to have occurred to be the 'right' year? I would think of it the other way, whatever year it was done in was the year we are talking about, since it was the dating method used to identify the year by the gospel writer...

As to requiring people to attend the census in their ancestral homestead, that seems to mean that the persons of the household of the family patriarch are to be counted in that household, excuses would apparently have to be sworn statements about why so and so wasn't present. You can see Egypt returns for examples if you wish. They counted everyone, including slaves and small children and they wanted ages and injuries etc., included.

A rather large .pdf except from the book I linked to previously, tells what information can be gained from the Egyptian Census returns collected under Roman rule. here (http://assets.cambridge.org/97805210/25966/excerpt/9780521025966_excerpt.pdf) The original link I posted to was the book title from the catalogue, here (http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521025966)

Which 'right time' are you thinking of for the 'universal census?' The census was done in Egypt every fourteen years reliably, every seven years seemingly while under certain Caesars like Augustus, and the census, although universally covering the Roman empire, does not seem to mean that it was done during the same year in Gaul (for example) as it was in Egypt and Palestine, but which year do you think it is required to have occurred to be the 'right' year? I would think of it the other way, whatever year it was done in was the year we are talking about, since it was the dating method used to identify the year by the gospel writer...

As to requiring people to attend the census in their ancestral homestead, that seems to mean that the persons of the household of the family patriarch are to be counted in that household, excuses would apparently have to be sworn statements about why so and so wasn't present. You can see Egypt returns for examples if you wish. They counted everyone, including slaves and small children and they wanted ages and injuries etc., included.

thank you.

looking at it.

oh i was thinking of pre-death of herod or that quirinius (sp) thing.

This from the guy who has argued that the Gospels are eyewitness testimony?

No, I am not Prof. Richard Bauckham, if you have a problem with him or his credentials, have at it. Not my concern. The fact that you want to pretend he isn't qualified is reflective of your ignorance, not his. http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/bauck2.html


As to the book you are referencing, here is a review for the rest of you that might care...
http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/5650_6184.pdf

thank you.

looking at it.

oh i was thinking of pre-death of herod or that quirinius (sp) thing.

Apparently Quirinius was in Syria twice, once during Herod's lifetime, and then again later, when he was governor. The time frame is enough for a census to have occurred in both periods. Luke says, 'first' census.

Apparently Quirinius was in Syria twice, once during Herod's lifetime, and then again later, when he was governor. The time frame is enough for a census to have occurred in both periods. Luke says, 'first' census.

it was vaguely interesting. im not much on roman history. im amazed that they would try to count up people like that.

now if you can only find a reference to a roman census in palestine.

wasnt the quirinius census real but at 6 ad?

No,

You're a liar.

i think of it as a book of untrue stories, put together by a group of men who had nothing better to do with their lives.

it was vaguely interesting. im not much on roman history. im amazed that they would try to count up people like that.

now if you can only find a reference to a roman census in palestine.

wasnt the quirinius census real but at 6 ad?

Roman history=Awesome. They held censuses for the same reason we do: Taxes. Even so, the AD/BC system wasn't created until YEARS after Jesus' death, and I don't think that we really have the exact date of when Jesus was born, despite what some people say.

Roman history=Awesome. They held censuses for the same reason we do: Taxes. Even so, the AD/BC system wasn't created until YEARS after Jesus' death, and I don't think that we really have the exact date of when Jesus was born, despite what some people say.

Hell, we can't even prove he WAS born. Or lived. Died. Was anything more than a folktale.

Hell, we can't even prove he WAS born. Or lived. Died. Was anything more than a folktale.

Exactly. All we can do is believe, or disbelieve (A word?).

Exactly. All we can do is believe, or disbelieve (A word?).

That's it. Quibbling over AD/BC-ness is kind of like debating angels dancing on the head of a pin.

You're a liar.

Wait, are you saying he is Professor Richard Bauckham of the University of St. Andrews?

As for the original question, the Bible is an interesting scrapbook of ancient documents relating to the background and creation of Christianity. It's too bad, actually, that it's considered a Christian book, because that tends to turn off non-Christians who may actually get something from it. Not a conversion, necessarily, but the sort of greater understanding you get when you read an excellent novel or poem.

i think of it as a book of untrue stories, put together by a group of men who had nothing better to do with their lives.

haha, totaly agree

You're a liar.

Disingenuous much? Coming from you, I must be a saint.

Roman history=Awesome. They held censuses for the same reason we do: Taxes. Even so, the AD/BC system wasn't created until YEARS after Jesus' death, and I don't think that we really have the exact date of when Jesus was born, despite what some people say.

there isnt an exact date in the bible.

the story in matthew has mary and joseph living in bethlehem when the wise men show up and spill the beans to king herod who orders the slaughter of every boy child under 2 years old. they fled to egypt and stayed there until herod died--in 4bc.

the story of luke has the census, that quirinius guy and the need to go from nazareth to bethlehem in order to register at the family seat. that had to be at about 6ad because of when quirinius was there and when he had his census (that was not of the whole world but ...what to do, the ancients were fond of hyperbole)

so no, should jesus have existed in the flesh we dont know when he was born. we just know that it was NOT dec 25th 00 (there was no year 00)

Wait, are you saying he is Professor Richard Bauckham of the University of St. Andrews?


No, I'm saying that Balderdash has expressed exactly that sentiment, on these forums, before. Thus - to claim he hasn't, is a lie.

The fact that some other quack also claims it doesn't detract from the dishonesty of Balderdash's response.

Disingenuous much? Coming from you, I must be a saint.

How is that disingenuous.

You ARE the person who - on these very forums - has explicitly argued in favour of the Gospels as eyewitness testimony.

The fact that you can claim some other 'authority' out there is making the same stupid arguments isn't validation of your point... nor is it detracting from the fact that you lie when you say you didn't make that argument.

Hell, I can provide 'experts' who would back up a claim that the Hebrew culture is actually a long-hidden offshoot of Irish pre-Christian society, as are both Pharaonic Egypt, and Rome.

it was vaguely interesting. im not much on roman history. im amazed that they would try to count up people like that.
I didn't claim it was interesting, but it is informative. Interesting for those that care in a specifics kind of way...

now if you can only find a reference to a roman census in palestine. I don't need to. Romans took census of their provinces, end of need for further proof. If someone wants to argue that the census were taken everywhere except Palestine, I think the burden of proof would be on them.

wasnt the quirinius census real but at 6 ad? That would be the second census, the first would have been seven to 14 years before it.

I didn't claim it was interesting, but it is informative. Interesting for those that care in a specifics kind of way...

I don't need to. Romans took census of their provinces, end of need for further proof. If someone wants to argue that the census were taken everywhere except Palestine, I think the burden of proof would be on them.

That would be the second census, the first would have been seven to 14 years before it.

oh was quirinius governor of syria 7-14 years before the census in 6ad? (or is it 8ad?)

I don't need to. Romans took census of their provinces, end of need for further proof. If someone wants to argue that the census were taken everywhere except Palestine, I think the burden of proof would be on them.


Ah - so you have evidence of contemporary records for every Roman occupation and territory in that same interval, except Palestine?

And actually, thinking about it - if you DID - that would suggest our understanding of Palestine's connection to Rome was flawed, not that there MUST be some hidden census somewhere...

How is that disingenuous...

YOU are the poster on these forums that has expressly and explicitly argued that you don't regard any expert as expert, that no authority outside of your own doubts are required to hold your positions to be as valid as any other position. You are the poster that throws mud at any validation that disagrees with your position. Then you sprout off a singular attack shot that you think pigeon holes me instead of attacking my argument/position, that's how you are disingenuous. As always.

Ah - so you have evidence of contemporary records for every Roman occupation and territory in that same interval, except Palestine?

And actually, thinking about it - if you DID - that would suggest our understanding of Palestine's connection to Rome was flawed, not that there MUST be some hidden census somewhere...

It's my job to start from scratch with your education about what we do and what we don't have in regards to Roman records? At what point are you responsible for your own education instead of 'speculating' in your head what we do or what we don't have?

There are portions that I find quite offensive. It shouldn't be too difficult to guess what those portions are.

MOST of it is offensive! If not downright evil. :upyours:

oh was quirinius governor of syria 7-14 years before the census in 6ad? (or is it 8ad?)

Luke calls Pontius Pilate "governor of Judea" (Lk 3:1), even though Pilate had the title of procurator. Luke uses the word "governor" to mean "one who governs."

YOU are the poster on these forums that has expressly and explicitly argued that you don't regard any expert as expert,


This is true. There is no expert so 'expert' that I consider them beyond reproach.

But then, that should be true for all of us, don't you think?


...that no authority outside of your own doubts are required to hold your positions to be as valid as any other position.


This also is true. My position is doubt. As such, I don't need any 'evidence', since I'm not making any claims. All I need is basis for doubt.


You are the poster that throws mud at any validation that disagrees with your position.


This isn't true, unless - by 'throw mud' you mean - not take as gospel? The source you cite for this odd position vis-a-vis eyewitnesses, for example - isn't actually qualified in any field that would make it reasonable for him to make the claims he makes OBJECTIVELY. Thus, I do not accept his claims as especially meritorious.

To me, that's a not-unreasonable position. You don't take anything as irrefutable fact, until it can be shown to be so.

Apparently, to you -that is 'throwing mud'.


Then you sprout off a singular attack shot that you think pigeon holes me instead of attacking my argument/position, that's how you are disingenuous. As always.

You lied. I called you a liar. That's nothing to do with pigeons, their holes, or your positions with regards to them.

It's my job to start from scratch with your education about what we do and what we don't have in regards to Roman records? At what point are you responsible for your own education instead of 'speculating' in your head what we do or what we don't have?

You said "Romans took census of their provinces, end of need for further proof".

All I'm asking for is validation that this claim is true and relevent.

That's nothing to do with your "job" to "educate", it's simply called 'debate'. This is a debate forum. So you don't get to just preach. If you make a claim, you MIGHT be called upon to support it.

You THEN said "If someone wants to argue that the census were taken everywhere except Palestine, I think the burden of proof would be on them".

The 'burden of proof' doesn't work like that. It would work like that IF you could show that Palestine DID have complete records of ALL their provinces, territorialities, and adjuncts IN that same census cycle... and that Palestine was the only tributary state somehow (mysteriously) not covered.

And that is, in effect, what I asked you to cite.

I wonder why you prevaricate, rather than simply providing the evidence?

You said "Romans took census of their provinces, end of need for further proof".

Rarely did Rome take a Census outside of Rome. If anything, It'd been on a provincial level, and not ordered by the Emperor or (Nearly powerless) Senate.

Luke calls Pontius Pilate "governor of Judea" (Lk 3:1), even though Pilate had the title of procurator. Luke uses the word "governor" to mean "one who governs."

did that answer my question?

did that answer my question?

Yes. The first census taken when Quirinius was in Syria, not the second (second being the 6AD one).

Rarely did Rome take a Census outside of Rome. If anything, It'd been on a provincial level, and not ordered by the Emperor or (Nearly powerless) Senate.

And you can substantiate that opinion with what reasoning? We have over two hundred years of regular census results already sourced in this thread.

Yes. The first census taken when Quirinius was in Syria, not the second (second being the 6AD one).

and what was quirinius doing in syria at....6 bc?

And you can substantiate that opinion with what reasoning? We have over two hundred years of regular census results already sourced in this thread.

Just not two hundred ancient Roman Censuses. See?

You DON'T argue with the nerd who studies Roman history for fun :D.

and what was quirinius doing in syria at....6 bc?

It's not in the scripture, but other sources indicate that he was there when he was in charge of the fight against the Homonadensians.

EDIT: just noticed that you said 6BC, I don't think it was 6BC, I think it was between 5-3BC if memory serves.

Just not two hundred ancient Roman Censuses. See?

You DON'T argue with the nerd who studies Roman history for fun :D.

The Egyptian Censuses discussed were Roman censuses of the region.

It's not in the scripture, but other sources indicate that he was there when he was in charge of the fight against the Homonadensians.

no i know its not in the bible. thats why i asked.

not that that makes him either a governor or in charge of a census.

It's not in the scripture, but other sources indicate that he was there when he was in charge of the fight against the Homonadensians.

What are you talking about? He WAS in Syria, but the reason he was there was because he was appointed governor.

no i know its not in the bible. thats why i asked.

not that that makes him either a governor or in charge of a census.

He WAS governor, but of Syria.

The Egyptian Censuses discussed were Roman censuses of the region.

they were roman censuses of egypt.

the first one they had was in....12 ad?....not that that means that there were no earlier ones, but this source didnt have any that covered the proper time frame. not that that matters either since it was egypt and not palestine so lack of census in egypt in 6 bc is meaningless.

What are you talking about? He WAS in Syria, but the reason he was there was because he was appointed governor.

Before that, when he was there fighting the Homonadensians

http://www.livius.org/su-sz/sulpicius/quirinius.html

The Egyptian Censuses discussed were Roman censuses of the region.

That's one. I said RARELY, not "Never"

He WAS governor, but of Syria.

he was governor of syria but not in 6 bc.

this is what luke says...

chapter2

" Now it happened that at this time Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be made of the whole inhabited world.
2 This census -- the first -- took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria,
3 and everyone went to be registered, each to his own town.
4 So Joseph set out from the town of Nazareth in Galilee for Judaea, to David's town called Bethlehem, since he was of David's House and line, "

Before that, when he was there fighting the Homonadensians

http://www.livius.org/su-sz/sulpicius/quirinius.html

That page was a bunch of rubbish. The truth in there was akin to a needle in a haystack.

he was governor of syria but not in 6 bc.

this is what luke says...

chapter2

" Now it happened that at this time Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be made of the whole inhabited world.
2 This census -- the first -- took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria,
3 and everyone went to be registered, each to his own town.
4 So Joseph set out from the town of Nazareth in Galilee for Judaea, to David's town called Bethlehem, since he was of David's House and line, "

Haven't we already said that we don't know exactly when Jesus was born?

they were roman censuses of egypt.

the first one they had was in....12 ad?....not that that means that there were no earlier ones, but this source didnt have any that covered the proper time frame. not that that matters either since it was egypt and not palestine so lack of census in egypt in 6 bc is meaningless.

Egypt was also a more recent acquisition. Judea/Palestine was long held, a staging area even for the Egyptian aquistion... No one is arguing that the records from Egypt are complete, they are remarkable because they are so many, the type of records that did not survive elsewhere.

Haven't we already said that we don't know exactly when Jesus was born?

yes. especially since the 2 accounts of the birth of jesus give different time frames. balderdash is trying to explain that away.

That page was a bunch of rubbish. The truth in there was akin to a needle in a haystack.

?!?!?! Wow, you have a better online source somewhere?

yes. especially since the 2 accounts of the birth of jesus give different time frames. balderdash is trying to explain that away.

Ah. That explains it.

yes. especially since the 2 accounts of the birth of jesus give different time frames. balderdash is trying to explain that away.

I'm not trying to explain 'anything' away. I already pointed out that your objection is with a word that Luke used elsewhere to mean something other than what you think it means, and here, it means something other than what you think it means too.

That's one. I said RARELY, not "Never"

You mean it covers just one province? Because the data covers over two hundred years of regular 14 (and some seven) year censuses of the region. Why you think they only conducted infrequent censuses outside of Rome I don't know. Perhaps you think once every 14 years is infrequent?

I'm not trying to explain 'anything' away. I already pointed out that your objection is with a word that Luke used elsewhere to mean something other than what you think it means, and here, it means something other than what you think it means too.

i dont see why the mistake should be the title and ruler status of quirinius while he was in syria for an unknown census rather than that matthew got it wrong about the whole herod and dead baby thing.

I didn't claim it was interesting, but it is informative. Interesting for those that care in a specifics kind of way...

I don't need to. Romans took census of their provinces, end of need for further proof. If someone wants to argue that the census were taken everywhere except Palestine, I think the burden of proof would be on them.

That would be the second census, the first would have been seven to 14 years before it.

so . . .they took a census in. . .o about 1bc-8bc . . .so before he was born . . .and yet . . .he was counted? damn he is godly

I'm not trying to explain 'anything' away. I already pointed out that your objection is with a word that Luke used elsewhere to mean something other than what you think it means, and here, it means something other than what you think it means too.
I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but surely that's subject to interpretation? It's not as if you've got the eponymous Luke sitting by you, telling you what he meant. I believe it's commonly held that the Gospel of Luke can be dated back to around 80ish AD, at least 50 years after the events were supposed to have taken place. Luke could just be wrong, or writing inaccurately, or any number of possibilities.

I don't share G'n'I's zeal for proving you wrong, but I do object to the absolutist tone you take regarding Biblical scholarship. You and G'n'I (from my brief reading of you constant, and meaningless, 'debates') are mirror images; he desperately trying to prove anything in the Bible as made up, you desperately trying to prove everything in the Bible as factually true.

Both are impossible tasks.

i dont see why the mistake should be the title and ruler status of quirinius while he was in syria for an unknown census rather than that matthew got it wrong about the whole herod and dead baby thing.

I didn't say either got it wrong. Are you sure you are arguing with me or are you arguing with some other standard or position that I haven't made here?

You mean it covers just one province? Because the data covers over two hundred years of regular 14 (and some seven) year censuses of the region. Why you think they only conducted infrequent censuses outside of Rome I don't know. Perhaps you think once every 14 years is infrequent?

Regular 14 (and some 7). I lolled.

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but surely that's subject to interpretation? It's not as if you've got the eponymous Luke sitting by you, telling you what he meant. I believe it's commonly held that the Gospel of Luke can be dated back to around 80ish AD, at least 50 years after the events were supposed to have taken place. Luke could just be wrong, or writing inaccurately, or any number of possibilities.

I don't share G'n'I's zeal for proving you wrong, but I do object to the absolutist tone you take regarding Biblical scholarship. You and G'n'I (from my brief reading of you constant, and meaningless, 'debates') are mirror images; he desperately trying to prove anything in the Bible as made up, you desperately trying to prove everything in the Bible as factually true.

Both are impossible tasks.


I agree. My tone is intended to counter the adversaries here, not be offensive to bystanders. My apologies for frequently failing in keeping it courteous discourse.

Regular 14 (and some 7). I lolled.

Because you are unfamiliar with the material, who knows what you are thinking. The data indicates that some periods show census returns twice as frequently as other periods.

I don't share G'n'I's zeal for proving you wrong,


It's not zeal. He just makes it so easy. I really can't take the credit for hard work.


but I do object to the absolutist tone you take regarding Biblical scholarship. You and G'n'I (from my brief reading of you constant, and meaningless, 'debates') are mirror images; he desperately trying to prove anything in the Bible as made up,


No, not at all.

I don't believe any of it, except what can be corroborated elsewhere - and even then, I still have reservations about the absolute accuracy of even corroborative sources.

So - I not trying to prove ANYTHING is made up. I'm just refusing to accept any of it as provably factual.

And that's where I butt heads with Baldy. He's convinced the whole thing is handwritten by eyewitnesses, or something.

Because you are unfamiliar with the material, who knows what you are thinking. The data indicates that some periods show census returns twice as frequently as other periods.

No, no, my friend.

Regular. 14. or 7.

Thus.

Not regular. More... irregular, but varying in 7 year increments.

Funny. To me.

I agree. My tone is intended to counter the adversaries here, not be offensive to bystanders. My apologies for frequently failing in keeping it courteous discourse.
To be fair, you are very rarely noticeably angry.

I just think you guys are trying to convince each other of an impossibility and, as nearly every religious thread dissolves into you two trying to source something that happened nigh-on 2000 years ago, perhaps you guys should agree to disagree?

Or at least agree to debate something that can be answered?

To be fair, you are very rarely noticeably angry.

I just think you guys are trying to convince each other of an impossibility and, as nearly every religious thread dissolves into you two trying to source something that happened nigh-on 2000 years ago, perhaps you guys should agree to disagree?

Or at least agree to debate something that can be answered?

In all fairness, my position is doubt, and Baldy thinks we should all just accept what he says is true regardless of whether or not it can be verified.

We can't even agree to disagree, because I'm not making an argument, just refusing to accept his preaching.

So - I not trying to prove ANYTHING is made up. I'm just refusing to accept any of it as provably factual.
I don't see that as any better than accepting it all as perfect truth.

Sure, we'll never be able to prove conclusively whether the Biblical character of Jesus existed as depicted, or the minutia of the Gospels, but there are certainly some non-spiritual material in the Bible that can be proven.

In all fairness, my position is doubt, and Baldy thinks we should all just accept what he says is true regardless of whether or not it can be verified.
I don't think that's a fair assessment at all, as his interest in debating Biblical scholarship (no matter your opinion on the matter) shows.

I don't see that as any better than accepting it all as perfect truth.

Sure, we'll never be able to prove conclusively whether the Biblical character of Jesus existed as depicted, or the minutia of the Gospels, but there are certainly some non-spiritual material in the Bible that can be proven.


We can't even 'prove' the broad strokes of the Gospels, much less the older Hebrew scriptures. We can get some details... we know a lot about Rome, already - for example... we can maybe corroborate one or two people or places. But, as far as we know, pretty much everything from beginning to end of the New Testament is fiction, with one or two real names and places thrown in.

Do those real names and places make it fact? Not at all - they are just the setting, it says nothing about the veracity of the story. Unless you believe that Harry Potter is also factual, because it occassionally mentions real-world facts?

So - should I take the Bible as absolute truth? Hell no.

Should I take it as mostly true? I could - but why should I? Why should I treat that one historical source differently to all the other ones? No good reason.

So what am I left with? The Bible is a book. Some of it may be true, but I'm not going to believe anything I can't check elsewhere. Just like every other historical source.


I don't think that's a fair assessment at all, as his interest in debating Biblical scholarship (no matter your opinion on the matter) shows.

Seriously? He's actually argued that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts!

(The 'eyewitness' element falls down for me as soon as the Gospels start, to be honest... since none of the alleged Gospel writers would have likely had a very good view of the conception, or of little details like jumping foetuses).

I didn't say either got it wrong. Are you sure you are arguing with me or are you arguing with some other standard or position that I haven't made here?

quirinius was NOT governor of syria in 6 bc.

so either luke is right about quirinius and the census was the one in 8?ad making matthew wrong about jesus being born before herod died or matthew is right about jesus being born before 4bc and luke is wrong about quirinius being governor of syria at that time (as you suggested might be the case) with the addition of an unknown census at that time.

We can't even 'prove' the broad strokes of the Gospels, much less the older Hebrew scriptures. We can get some details... we know a lot about Rome, already - for example... we can maybe corroborate one or two people or places. But, as far as we know, pretty much everything from beginning to end of the New Testament is fiction, with one or two real names and places thrown in.

Do those real names and places make it fact?
No, but it makes your statement that, "I'm just refusing to accept any of it as provably factual" a rather silly one, as some things are, as you yourself said, provably factual.

Seriously? He's actually argued that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts!
In the spirit of this discussion, I have to ask you to prove/source that statement.

...
In the spirit of this discussion, I have to ask you to prove/source that statement.

I'll do that part myself, if he stated my position he would almost undoubtedly misinterpret or misrepresent it ...

I challenge the assumption (made from form criticism exercises) that the accounts of Jesus circulated as "anonymous community traditions," or otherwise fabricated myths unrelated to real events and real eyewitnesses, and instead assert that the original eyewitness testimony was transmitted to us in the gospels. My position is championed elsewhere as well… 2 different reviews of the same book. It took him 500 pages to make the argument, I'm not going to try and duplicate that here...

http://www.bib-arch.org/reviews/revieweyewitness.asp
http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/5650_6184.pdf

You mean it covers just one province? Because the data covers over two hundred years of regular 14 (and some seven) year censuses of the region. Why you think they only conducted infrequent censuses outside of Rome I don't know. Perhaps you think once every 14 years is infrequent?
1. Yes. Yes I do.

2. Because Rome was what really mattered. Rome was where all the actual citizens were. Well, that and Italy.

Um, riiiight.

I source you with Cambridge Studies in Population, Economy and Society in Past Time for information about Roman Census and census data collection from the same time period, and you source me with a wiki article that erroneously claims that only roman citizens were counted in the census. And yet, you posture a pompous tone and pretend I'm the one providing flawed sources. :rolleyes:

Where did I claim you provided false sources?
The point you have missed is that the bible gave a pretty exact time for the pressumed census, and there simply is no Roman record for that exact time. There were some before and some after, but none right then.

So while we can use the bible to deduct that there have been Roman censi, we still cannot rely on its accuracy.
Just like with the rest of it... sure there have been floods. But a big one covering the whole earth? No.
Sure the Israelites were at war with other tribes. But fighting giants? Hardly.

No, but it makes your statement that, "I'm just refusing to accept any of it as provably factual" a rather silly one, as some things are, as you yourself said, provably factual.


Not really. There's about nothing in their, about from a couple of names, that are 'provably factual'. And, while I might accept that there might have been someone calle Pontius Pilate, for example... that's about ALL that I'm willing to accept about him, because that's about all that can be corroborated.

See what I mean?


In the spirit of this discussion, I have to ask you to prove/source that statement.

It'll be archived here somewhere, I assume. Me - I never mastered the search functions on jolt. (I can provide witnesses, though... Jocabia, for example, was in on that particular debate...)

I am neither Christian nor Jewish, so I have no opinion about the Bible, either half of it.

I do have varying opinions about people who read the Bible, though. I think -- and this is just my personal opinion -- that most of them have no idea what it is about. I include those who claim they live by its every word in that, btw. I also include most of its detractors, too.

When I read threads like this, I feel happy that my religion has no texts.

he was governor of syria but not in 6 bc.

this is what luke says...

chapter2

" Now it happened that at this time Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be made of the whole inhabited world.
2 This census -- the first -- took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria,
3 and everyone went to be registered, each to his own town.
4 So Joseph set out from the town of Nazareth in Galilee for Judaea, to David's town called Bethlehem, since he was of David's House and line, "

It's worth emphasising Luke's use of the genitive: "governor of Syria". While there is some leeway in the interpretation of 'governor', the use of the genitive shows that simply being a general or commander in Syria (dative) won't cut it as this ignores the grammar of the text.

In my opinion, the two nativity stories serve the same purpose as the trip to Malfoy Manor in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Harry et al were taken to the manor because is was necessary for the story that they learn the location of the next horcrux, defeat Draco and meet a goblin to help them break into Gringotts; Matthew and Luke present their stories because it's necessary for their narrative that Jesus be born in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth.

Incidentally, what's happened to the smilies? I go away for a few weeks and they've all been changed. :soap:

It's worth emphasising Luke's use of the genitive: "governor of Syria". While there is some leeway in the interpretation of 'governor', the use of the genitive shows that simply being a general or commander in Syria (dative) won't cut it as this ignores the grammar of the text.

In my opinion, the two nativity stories serve the same purpose as the trip to Malfoy Manor in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Harry et al were taken to the manor because is was necessary for the story that they learn the location of the next horcrux, defeat Draco and meet a goblin to help them break into Gringotts; Matthew and Luke present their stories because it's necessary for their narrative that Jesus be born in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth.

Incidentally, what's happened to the smilies? I go away for a few weeks and they've all been changed. :soap:

take a loook around the page. there are other changes too.

are there any commentaries from the time discussing the shuffling up of the whole jewish community as they travelled from one part of the country to another to do a census?

do you know what was involved in being counted? was is something you wanted to make sure you got in on or was it better to avoid? did you just show up with the fam and some official counted you up and then you walked back home again? did everyone have to do it or could you leave a few people at home to watch over the homestead and tell the census guy at the family headquarters town how many you left?

was it ever done AGAIN?