"Rachel Weeping" Has Absolutely NOTHING To Do W/ Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents

[trettep]

Originally Posted by Vizio

Matthew quoted it. Good enough for me.

It has a dual meaning.

Yeah, same here. Matthew mentions it and that is good enough for me. Even though it is also mentioned in another early Christian writing.

[thrillobyte]

Oh dear. If the Bible says so, it's just gotta be true!

All this Bibliolatry just has me shaking my head in sorrow. Critical thinking and reasoning just flies out the window when the subject of the Bible's inerrancy comes up.

Biblical inerrancy is the doctrine that the Bible is accurate and totally free from error of any kind

even though these zingers pop up all over the place:

1KI 9:28 420 talents of gold were brought back from Ophir.
2CH 8:18 450 talents of gold were brought back from Ophir.

1KI 15:14 Asa did not remove the high places.
2CH 14:2-3 He did remove them.

1KI 16:6-8 Baasha died in the 26th year of King Asa's reign.
2CH 16:1 Baasha built a city in the 36th year of King Asa's reign.

1KI 16:23 Omri became king in the thirty-first year of Asa's reign and he reigned for a total of twelve years.
1KI 16:28-29 Omri died, and his son Ahab became king in the thirty- eighth year of Asa's reign. (Note: Thirty-one through thirty-eight equals a reign of seven or eight years.)

1KI 22:23, 2CH 18:22, 2TH 2:11 God himself causes a lying spirit.
PR 12:22 God abhors lying lips and delights in honesty.

1KI 22:42-43 Jehoshaphat did not remove the high places.
2CH 17:5-6 He did remove them.

2KI 2:11 Elijah went up to heaven.
JN 3:13 Only the Son of Man (Jesus) has ever ascended to heaven.
2CO 12:2-4 An unnamed man, known to Paul, went up to heaven and came back.
HE 11:5 Enoch was translated to heaven.

2KI 4:32-37 A dead child is raised (well before the time of Jesus).
MT 9:18-25, JN 11:38-44 Two dead persons are raised (by Jesus himself).
AC 26:23 Jesus was the first to rise from the dead.

2KI 8:25-26 Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began his reign.
2CH 22:2 He was 42 when he began his reign.

2KI 9:27 Jehu shot Ahaziah near Ibleam. Ahaziah fled to Meggido and died there.
2CH 22:9 Ahaziah was found hiding in Samaria, brought to Jehu, and put to death.

2KI 16:5 The King of Syria and the son of the King of Israel did not conquer Ahaz.
2CH 28:5-6 They did conquer Ahaz.

2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin (Jehoiakim) was eighteen years old when he began to reign.
2CH 36:9 He was eight.
(Note: This discrepancy has been "corrected" in some versions.)

2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin (Jehoiakim) reigned three months.
2CH 36:9 He reigned three months and ten days.

2KI 24:17 Jehoiachin (Jehoaikim) was succeeded by his uncle.
2CH 36:10 He was succeeded by his brother.

1CH 3:11-13 The lineage is: Joram, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Azariah, Jotham.
MT 1:8-9 It is: Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, etc.

1CH 3:19 Pedaiah was the father of Zerubbabel.
ER 3:2 Shealtiel was the father of Zerubbabel.

[bartstarr1960]

Originally Posted by Wardendresden

Actually, it's unlikely that Bethlehem was even Jesus's birthplace. None of the gospel narratives make any sense with that regard, and are even contradictory.

quote:
Luke 2:1-7 describes Joseph and Mary as residents of Nazareth in the Galilee. They would have had to travel for about a week to cover the approximately 90 miles (140 km) from Nazareth in the Galilee south to Bethlehem in Judea. Luke says that they had to do this in order to take part in the Roman census and taxation. Jesus was born whilethey were in Bethlehem. This version of the Christmas story seems a little strange, for many reasons:

In 1st century Judea women "...were considered second-class citizens, akin to slaves."Only Joseph would be required to register with the authorities, because "the husband was the spiritual and legal head of the house." The presence of his teenaged fiancé or wife would be redundant. Mary would hardly have made the 100 mile trip while about 9 months pregnant unless it was absolutely necessary. Joseph would have traveled without Mary, and probably in a group to give better protection from bandits.
Aviram Oshri, a senior archaeologist with the Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA), has said: "Basic medical knowledge tells you that a heavily pregnant woman could not ride a donkey that kind of distance without losing her baby." Although medical knowledge was primitive in those days, that much information would have been generally known. Joseph and Mary would not have had access to a method of transportation other than walking on foot or by riding on an animal.
There is no record of a worldwide census as stated Luke having been made in the last decade BCE. If one had been conducted, it would have been so disruptive that its effects certainly would have been recorded at the time in many Roman documents. A local census was taken by Quirinius during 6 CE, but that would have been when Jesus was about ten years of age. Also, it was held in Judea, but not the Galilee where the Gospel of Matthew said that Joseph lived.
It makes absolutely no sense to require Jews and other inhabitants of the Roman Empire to return to their ancestral town for registration. The economy of the Empire would be devastated if everyone had to make such a visit. The transportation facilities would be hopelessly overloaded. Censuses are generally taken where people live -- in ancient times and now.
Circa 6 BCE, when Jesus was believed to have be born, it would have been impractical to require adults to return to the ancestral city of their tribe. Because of the extermination and scattering of Jews in the Northern Kingdom, and the enslavement and exile of the remaining Jews in Babylon of whom relatively few returned, many, if not most, Jews in Judea at the time would not be aware of their tribal identification.
end quote
Where was Jesus born?#

Further, Mark contradicts Matthew by identifying Nazareth as Jesus' hometown--the place where he was born.

There was a great deal of apologetic additions to the scriptures over the years to help Jesus "fit in" to the various misunderstood prophecies of the OT. The mere fact that Nazareth was written as Jesus hometown by Mark is in fact remarkable because there is no mention anywhere else historically of the town of Nazareth prior to the third century.

It is not out of the realm of possibility for murderous Herod to have slaughtered a few children (later church fathers wrote the number killed from a range of 3000 to 64,000 (both preposterous numbers), because he burned rabbis at the stake and even killed his own family members, his son four days before his own death. He was such a blood thirsty individual that Caesar once commented, "I would rather be Herod's pig than his son."

But on a purely historical basis, it appears Jesus was always a Nazarene.

I like my version better. Oshri's work is compelling and it very well could be. I'm certain you must be aware of the work of Uri Yosef and The Messiah Truth Project. In one of their articles they take the four prophecies fulfilled in Matthew 2 and claim to discredit them with the Hebrew Text compared to the Jewish Translation of The Hebrew Text, The KJV Bible OT and the KJV Bible NT. I don't read Hebrew so I'll have to take their word for it that it doesn't match the other three versions. The Jewish Translation and the KJV match up pretty much word for word. They conclude since Matthew 2 has errors with the original Hebrew text that they have "proven", then the entire Book of Matthew is untrustworthy, and therefore Christianity is false. I got into this big time several years ago seeking what I thought was more truth. I became heavily discouraged, almost depressed, thinking I'd bought into a lie. One day it came to a head. I placed it all on the altar and sought God's face. The answer was slow coming, but I started to research the great Christian theologians of old and found they wrestled with the same dilemmas. "There is nothing new under the sun," Solomon said. He nailed that one didn't he? Then, one day in prayer, "Suffer the little children to come unto me........for of such is the kingdom of God," played over and over in my head. Somewhere along the way I'd lost that simple child like faith. My study for more had led me astray. I felt like John Bunyan. "Naysayers and doubters will try and make an example out of you," Jesus said. I recommited my life to the Lord.

Wardendresden, you pried open a part of me I never planned on sharing.

Do you think they should change A Charlie Brown Christmas? You could do the voice over.

[thrillobyte]

I'd like to add that I don't believe Christianity has to be black and white as fundamentalists do.

bartstarr, you mentioned that when you felt you bought into a lie, you became almost depressed. There have been millions of people down through the centuries who nearly came to suicide and many of them did commit suicide because they couldn't accept the fact that God could torture billions of people in the fires of hell, in fact the vast majority of mankind. If you can get depressed over possibly having bought into a lie, how do you feel about God torturing roughly 95% of everyone who has ever lived (estimate: 100 billion souls) How does that sit with your senses? I don't expect an answer; it's a rhetorical question, but one you should give careful consideration to; many fundamentalists find a way to rationalize such an atrocity by saying such things as, "God didn't send them to hell; they sent themselves."

I find no problem at all with being a Christian, yet realizing the Bible is riddled with errors. It doesn't de-legitimize the core message which is that Jesus came to save souls. But to insist against blatant factual evidence that there are no discrepancies is to just become rabidly fanatical. Not saying you are, just saying that many Christian fundamentalists are and it's not healthy--mentally, psychologically and especially spiritually.

[Wardendresden]

Originally Posted by bartstarr1960

I like my version better. Oshri's work is compelling and it very well could be. I'm certain you must be aware of the work of Uri Yosef and The Messiah Truth Project. In one of their articles they take the four prophecies fulfilled in Matthew 2 and claim to discredit them with the Hebrew Text compared to the Jewish Translation of The Hebrew Text, The KJV Bible OT and the KJV Bible NT. I don't read Hebrew so I'll have to take their word for it that it doesn't match the other three versions. The Jewish Translation and the KJV match up pretty much word for word. They conclude since Matthew 2 has errors with the original Hebrew text that they have "proven", then the entire Book of Matthew is untrustworthy, and therefore Christianity is false. I got into this big time several years ago seeking what I thought was more truth. I became heavily discouraged, almost depressed, thinking I'd bought into a lie. One day it came to a head. I placed it all on the altar and sought God's face. The answer was slow coming, but I started to research the great Christian theologians of old and found they wrestled with the same dilemmas. "There is nothing new under the sun," Solomon said. He nailed that one didn't he? Then, one day in prayer, "Suffer the little children to come unto me........for of such is the kingdom of God," played over and over in my head. Somewhere along the way I'd lost that simple child like faith. My study for more had led me astray. I felt like John Bunyan. "Naysayers and doubters will try and make an example out of you," Jesus said. I recommited my life to the Lord.

Wardendresden, you pried open a part of me I never planned on sharing.

Do you think they should change A Charlie Brown Christmas? You could do the voice over.

Actually, Bart, I went through some of the same thing in my college days as my Bible course studies introduced me to textual criticism. But I had a wonderful, liberal Bible professor (the only liberal of three Bible professors at the college), who at first caused the doubts to arise in me, but over time and several courses I saw the Spirit of God living in him, saw his passion for the truth which in no way discouraged his belief---and, along with the scholarship he demanded of his students----lo and behold, a liberal ministerial student was born!!! Except, somewhere along the way, I saw that my short fuse is a great detriment for a minister.

I still have passion for the scripture, and not once have I ever thought I bought into a lie. I read works by some liberal scholars who have turned agnostic (Bart Ehrman, for one), and have great respect for their scholarship but it has not even made me think of agnosticism. Because once you have experienced the Living God in your heart and found Him as Lord, there is nothing that can be put into your head that can change that commitment.

One thing my liberal professor taught me was that as long as someone needs a literal Bible as a crutch, they have never exercised real faith in a God who reveals himself through imperfections--imperfect people and imperfect scripture. As the great Danish theologian, Soren Kierkegaard once said, "The best thing we can do is put all the Bibles in a pile and burn them." His point wasn't that the Bible is not of use, it was that it is more often an impediment to faith in many.

The truth in the Bible is absolutely not clear. Just read the various posts on these threads. It has to be pulled very carefully from the verses, and its easy to make mistakes with it.

So, yes, my views of Scripture have changed, and I spend my time challenging those who hold to a Book as if it were the Rosetta Stone, instead of doing what Kierkegaard advised with regard to faith---spiritually throw yourself off a cliff knowing God will catch you. I believe literalists need to lose the crutch and embrace the Christ.

It's the only way to find deep seated, unmovable, unchallengeable faith.

Originally Posted by Vizio

Matthew quoted it. Good enough for me.

It has a dual meaning.

He! He! This just makes me laugh and proves my point on another thread about multiple interpretations.

Hey, I guess if need be you can have triple and quadruple meanings - whatever it takes to makes sense of it all.

[bartstarr1960]

Originally Posted by augiedogie

Isn't it nice to have posters that know more than Matthew(, who actually wrote this and was a student of Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. NOT. And yes, Herod was that evil. He had ordered that a large number of Jewish citizens be executed on the occasion of his own death, so that there would be guaranteed weeping at the time of his death. If I remember correctly, Josephus records this in his writings. Or maybe the OP wants to correct Josephus too.

You're right that he ordered notable Jews rounded up and placed in the hippodrome in Jericho. Herod died and his sister Salome rescinded the order and had them released.

[bartstarr1960]

Originally Posted by Wardendresden

Actually, Bart, I went through some of the same thing in my college days as my Bible course studies introduced me to textual criticism. But I had a wonderful, liberal Bible professor (the only liberal of three Bible professors at the college), who at first caused the doubts to arise in me, but over time and several courses I saw the Spirit of God living in him, saw his passion for the truth which in no way discouraged his belief---and, along with the scholarship he demanded of his students----lo and behold, a liberal ministerial student was born!!! Except, somewhere along the way, I saw that my short fuse is a great detriment for a minister.

I still have passion for the scripture, and not once have I ever thought I bought into a lie. I read works by some liberal scholars who have turned agnostic (Bart Ehrman, for one), and have great respect for their scholarship but it has not even made me think of agnosticism. Because once you have experienced the Living God in your heart and found Him as Lord, there is nothing that can be put into your head that can change that commitment.

One thing my liberal professor taught me was that as long as someone needs a literal Bible as a crutch, they have never exercised real faith in a God who reveals himself through imperfections--imperfect people and imperfect scripture. As the great Danish theologian, Soren Kierkegaard once said, "The best thing we can do is put all the Bibles in a pile and burn them." His point wasn't that the Bible is not of use, it was that it is more often an impediment to faith in many.

The truth in the Bible is absolutely not clear. Just read the various posts on these threads. It has to be pulled very carefully from the verses, and its easy to make mistakes with it.

So, yes, my views of Scripture have changed, and I spend my time challenging those who hold to a Book as if it were the Rosetta Stone, instead of doing what Kierkegaard advised with regard to faith---spiritually throw yourself off a cliff knowing God will catch you. I believe literalists need to lose the crutch and embrace the Christ.

It's the only way to find deep seated, unmovable, unchallengeable faith.

Unfortunately, many take pleasure in trouncing every truth about Christianity by pointing out perceived biblical errors. They somehow transfer perceived biblical errors to mean Christianity is erred and therefore false. I agree the Bible is not always clear. Many pull verses out of context and use them to justify just about anything. For me, the Bible is what led me from one religion's untruth to THE truth about Jesus Christ. I had my Luther moment and for the first time what it means to be in Christ was revealed to me. I'm not giving the credit to the Bible as some book, but to the Holy Spirit illuminating God's Word. Did the Bible save me? Of course not. What it did was afford my eyes to read what my spirit heard. I have seen too many people whose lives have been transformed by the Word, the Holy Spirit, and God working together that I simply can't accept it as a mere crutch, but a tool. I've read my Bible from cover to cover so many times I don't think there is a line that isn't highlighted nor a margin that isn't scribbled in. The thing looks like it's ready for the dumpster. Do I worship my Bible? Heavens no. Am I a Bible literalist? I take it for what it claims to be, nothing more, nothing less. Is it inerrant? For me, it's truths have been. When Paul used the word theopneustos do we really know exactly what he meant? God-Breathed, God-Inspired. I have often considered the Holy Spirit authored the Bible then, and the Holy Spirit illuminates the Bible today. The Holy Spirit bridges the gap.

How do we really know that what we perceive as Biblical error is not exactly what the author intended? We could spend a lifetime second guessing what the Bible says and miss the point that Christ died that we may live. Suggesting OT prophecy is not fulfilled by Jesus reduces him to nothing more than a good man, a prophet at best. I can't see throwing out the crux of Christianity because we perceive errors in the Bible. If that's the case we might as well close up shop and put out the GONE OUT OF BUSINESS signs.

Wardendresden, I respect your opinions and thoughts very much. You've been an encouragement to me in the brief time I've been on this forum. I don't know if after reading this post we are any closer or if we'll have to simply agree to disagree. Either way we're brothers in Christ.