Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm wondering how most who claim that the bible has no errors explain the historical errors found in it.
Example:
1 chron. 29.7 This verse shows where the funds came from to build the temple, which according to scholars was about 1000 bce. It makes reference to the coin called "derics" this coin wasn't minted until 500 bce. I've been told that this coin was common at the time this book was written, that is why it is in this verse, but this would still be an error, it would be as if I write a historical book about the 1500's but instead of using a horse and wagon I substituted a 2009 Dodge pickup.
Also in the Gospel of Matthew he speaks of “Herod’s slaughter of the innocents”, when Herod ordered all the infant boys to be killed. However, when one reads the works of Flavius Josephus, who carefully chronicled Herod's abuses,he makes no mention of it.
Again at the crucifixion of Jesus, it is stated that the skies darkened all over the earth and there were earthquakes. Why is it that we see no documentation of this except in the bible. There were historians around at this time that documented every event that took place, historians like Philo, Josephus and even Roman records, but none make mention of this.
The Roman census, this was the reason for Joseph and Mary to return to Bethlehem. In Luke the cencus occured during the reign of the Roman governor Quirinius (this goes along with a census ordered by Augustus) and yet both Luke and Matthew say it was also during the time of Herod. The problem arises is this, Herod died in 4BCE, Quirinius wasn't appointed goveror until 6CE. So if Mary convieved during the time of Harod and didn't give birth until the census was ordered, it would have been a 10 year pregnancy.
These are just a couple of them, there are many historical errors. So if the bible is the enerrorant word of God, why the mistakes.
I'm wondering how most who claim that the bible has no errors explain the historical errors found in it.
Example:
1 chron. 29.7 This verse shows where the funds came from to build the temple, which according to scholars was about 1000 bce. It makes reference to the coin called "derics" this coin wasn't minted until 500 bce. I've been told that this coin was common at the time this book was written, that is why it is in this verse, but this would still be an error, it would be as if I write a historical book about the 1500's but instead of using a horse and wagon I substituted a 2009 Dodge pickup.
Chronicles is believed to have been written by Ezra around 500 B.C. It's possible that he was speaking in terms of what he knew. Or perhaps a later scribe inserted the term instead.
Quote:
Also in the Gospel of Matthew he speaks of “Herod’s slaughter of the innocents”, when Herod ordered all the infant boys to be killed. However, when one reads the works of Flavius Josephus, who carefully chronicled Herod's abuses,he makes no mention of it.
So? Because Josephus didn't mention it, it didn't happen?
weak.
Quote:
Again at the crucifixion of Jesus, it is stated that the skies darkened all over the earth and there were earthquakes. Why is it that we see no documentation of this except in the bible. There were historians around at this time that documented every event that took place, historians like Philo, Josephus and even Roman records, but none make mention of this.
Again...weak. No extra-Biblical documentation has been discovered so it's wrong? If some is discovered, are you going to change your mind?
Quote:
The Roman census, this was the reason for Joseph and Mary to return to Bethlehem. In Luke the cencus occured during the reign of the Roman governor Quirinius (this goes along with a census ordered by Augustus) and yet both Luke and Matthew say it was also during the time of Herod. The problem arises is this, Herod died in 4BCE, Quirinius wasn't appointed goveror until 6CE. So if Mary convieved during the time of Harod and didn't give birth until the census was ordered, it would have been a 10 year pregnancy.
These are just a couple of them, there are many historical errors. So if the bible is the enerrorant word of God, why the mistakes.
One explanation that I've seen is to suggest a mistranslation of Luke's gospel. Instead of saying "at the time of", it could be translated "prior to".
Bottom line is, these Gospels were written 30 years after Christ, and spread rapidly among the churches. I don't believe that a blatant error like that would have been accepted.
Chronicles is believed to have been written by Ezra around 500 B.C. It's possible that he was speaking in terms of what he knew. Or perhaps a later scribe inserted the term instead.
What you posted this the standard reasoning for this verse, but it is still an error/ Maybe if it was the inspired word of God one would think that God would know this.
So? Because Josephus didn't mention it, it didn't happen?
Before you say it weak, have you read any of the works of Josephus? If not, you remark is weak. Like I said, Josephus carefully chronicled Herod's abuses.
Again...weak. No extra-Biblical documentation has been discovered so it's wrong? If some is discovered, are you going to change your mind?
Again, you have historians at the time of Jesus who carefully documented the events of the day, I sure that an event like this would have caught there attention and not gone unnoticed, yet there is no mention of this in any of there writings.
One explanation that I've seen is to suggest a mistranslation of Luke's gospel. Instead of saying "at the time of", it could be translated "prior to".
Bottom line is, these Gospels were written 30 years after Christ, and spread rapidly among the churches. I don't believe that a blatant error like that would have been accepted.
You are correct Terry
Herod never ordered the slaughter of the innocents. Remember that Herod was hated by jews, not because so much of his cruelty (That was pretty much the norm anyway) More because he was given a throne which many believed he did not deserve.
It is probable, and facts suggest, that he did not do a lot of the hienous deeds he has been so acused; but remember, that those deeds were written well after his death by jews who wished to defame him.
Remember, the Bible was only written by the hands of man (or men) Therefore, it is far from perfect. And some day, hopefully, mankind will realize that, just as they learned one day that the Sun was not pulled across the sky by some chariot driven by Apollo......
There's more to the Herod story than the fact Josephus does not mention it. Yes, Josephus wrote extensively about Herod including his many atrocities but fails to mention the one that would have been his most dastardly - the [alleged] killing of infants. This should make one rather suspicious of the event. No other contemporary writer, whether they be Roman, Greek or Jewish, make ANY mention of it either. In addition, none of the other Gospels has anything to say about it either.
The above is damaging enough, but what is even more ridiculous, compounding the problem, is the writer of Matthew's attempt to also claim Herod's supposed massacre of these infants fulfilled a prophecy found in Jeremiah 31. Any sane and intelligent person reading the verse in question (verse 15) IN IT'S CONTEXT will quickly realize the writer of the book of Jeremiah does NOT have children, much less Jesus, in mind 600 years in the future. This is nothing more than a desperate and sorry attempt by early Christians to find anything in the Old Testament they could cling to to embed Jesus into. Scripture manipulation at its best!
Oh, I failed to mention the fact that the Herod story is an old recirculated story that made the rounds in the ancient near east and beyond. Promised king is born and becomes a perceived threat to current evil king. Evil king finds out and seeks to destroy promised king and either kills others to get to his threat OR exiles both promised king and his mother to some distant land.
The stories vary but the basics are similar. There are the stories of Perseus and Herakles (Hercules) and Krishna from India. There is even a shadow of it in the infancy story of Moses who was slated to be killed as a baby and the story of Saul and David.
Apparently, you've got it all wrong. First, you approach the Bible as a legal or historical document. It is neither. The Bible is a holy book for Christian and Jewish believers. It deals with the relations between humans and God. It is not meant to be scrutinized or compared with historical records, or with scholars thesis. You either believe in it, or not. From your post I understand that you are a non believer and somehow want to "prove" that things in the Bible are inaccurate. If so, you missed the whole point behind a holy book. As for scholars - their theories change constantly (they even don't agree with one another). If you asked a scholar 100 years ago one of your questions, you would probably get an answer that is very different from that one you get today. 100 years down the road, they will laugh at our theories. On the other hand, the Bible remains unchanged. Think about that.
P.S. Even if the Bible account coincides with scholar theories, would you become a believer? I doubt it. You would probably dig further looking for other "mistakes".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terryj
I'm wondering how most who claim that the bible has no errors explain the historical errors found in it.
Example:
1 chron. 29.7 This verse shows where the funds came from to build the temple, which according to scholars was about 1000 bce. It makes reference to the coin called "derics" this coin wasn't minted until 500 bce. I've been told that this coin was common at the time this book was written, that is why it is in this verse, but this would still be an error, it would be as if I write a historical book about the 1500's but instead of using a horse and wagon I substituted a 2009 Dodge pickup.
Also in the Gospel of Matthew he speaks of “Herod’s slaughter of the innocents”, when Herod ordered all the infant boys to be killed. However, when one reads the works of Flavius Josephus, who carefully chronicled Herod's abuses,he makes no mention of it.
Again at the crucifixion of Jesus, it is stated that the skies darkened all over the earth and there were earthquakes. Why is it that we see no documentation of this except in the bible. There were historians around at this time that documented every event that took place, historians like Philo, Josephus and even Roman records, but none make mention of this.
The Roman census, this was the reason for Joseph and Mary to return to Bethlehem. In Luke the cencus occured during the reign of the Roman governor Quirinius (this goes along with a census ordered by Augustus) and yet both Luke and Matthew say it was also during the time of Herod. The problem arises is this, Herod died in 4BCE, Quirinius wasn't appointed goveror until 6CE. So if Mary convieved during the time of Harod and didn't give birth until the census was ordered, it would have been a 10 year pregnancy.
These are just a couple of them, there are many historical errors. So if the bible is the enerrorant word of God, why the mistakes.
Apparently, you've got it all wrong. First, you approach the Bible as a legal or historical document. It is neither. The Bible is a holy book for Christian and Jewish believers. It deals with the relations between humans and God. It is not meant to be scrutinized or compared with historical records, or with scholars thesis. You either believe in it, or not. From your post I understand that you are a non believer and somehow want to "prove" that things in the Bible are inaccurate. If so, you missed the whole point behind a holy book. As for scholars - their theories change constantly (they even don't agree with one another). If you asked a scholar 100 years ago one of your questions, you would probably get an answer that is very different from that one you get today. 100 years down the road, they will laugh at our theories. On the other hand, the Bible remains unchanged. Think about that.
Logical fallacy. God gave us reason to use, just as He gave us the Holy
Scriptures. Your argument clouds the issue and leaves the faithful on
sandy ground. . . IMHO
Logical fallacy. God gave us reason to use, just as He gave us the Holy Scriptures. Your argument clouds the issue and leaves the faithful on sandy ground. . . IMHO
I am not sure I get it. Can you explain it more? Religious belief is not a rational process. It has to do with feelings and the inner "soul". If you go by rational, no religion holds water.
Apparently, you've got it all wrong. First, you approach the Bible as a legal or historical document. It is neither. The Bible is a holy book for Christian and Jewish believers. It deals with the relations between humans and God. It is not meant to be scrutinized or compared with historical records, or with scholars thesis. You either believe in it, or not. From your post I understand that you are a non believer and somehow want to "prove" that things in the Bible are inaccurate. If so, you missed the whole point behind a holy book. As for scholars - their theories change constantly (they even don't agree with one another). If you asked a scholar 100 years ago one of your questions, you would probably get an answer that is very different from that one you get today. 100 years down the road, they will laugh at our theories. On the other hand, the Bible remains unchanged. Think about that.
P.S. Even if the Bible account coincides with scholar theories, would you become a believer? I doubt it. You would probably dig further looking for other "mistakes".
Did those things written about in the Bible actually take place?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
