Biblical Contradictions; a thing of graphical beauty.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

how can you say that the instruction to those who are 'residing out of their own provinces' means that people are to return to their ancestral homeland? What purpose does that serve a census of taxation? That's like asking the Kennedy's to return to Ireland.

The order didn't specify to retrun to "your ancestral homeland", but "home" to a Jew would have been to a place where he actually owned property.  For a member of tribe of Judah, it would have meant returning to Judea.  In the case of of Joseph, his alloment of the Promised Land was through the line of David in Bethlehem.

A member of tribe of Judah had no claim to any land in Nazareth, which belonged to the tribe Naphtali or Zebulun.  According to Jewish Law, Joseph would have offically considered himself a resident of Bethlehem, NOT Nazareth. 

Are you arguing that Nazareth became a temporary ghost town, or that not every Jew was as scrupulous as Joseph was in returning to the ancestral land of his tribe?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually there is ample reason for Luke to have Jesus conceived someplace other than Bethlehem (tho not necessarily Nazareth).  One of the major themes of Luke's nativity story is to foreshadow that Jesus will be the Lamb of God who is to be sacrificed to atone for our sins.  Hence, shepherds are brought in to observe the newborn child while his parents are living where animals would normally be kept and he is lying in a manger.  If Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem, there would be no reason for Jesus to be born in such rustic circumstances.

That's the major pitfall of arguing something must be true because there was no reason to make it up. Someone else might come up with a reason you didn't think of.

[The Mikado]

RE: Old Testament and archaeology:

Tiglath-Pileser III and Shalmanezer's 8th century BCE conquest of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and subjugation of the Southern Kingdom of Judah is attested in Assyrian records just as much as it is in the II Kings account (though, of course, the reason the Southern Kingdom was spared destruction isn't attributed to King Hezekiah's righteousness and faith in Yahweh in the Assyrian account).

[To The Cliffs!]

A member of tribe of Judah had no claim to any land in Nazareth, which belonged to the tribe Naphtali or Zebulun.  According to Jewish Law, Joseph would have offically considered himself a resident of Bethlehem, NOT Nazareth.

Are you arguing that Nazareth became a temporary ghost town, or that not every Jew was as scrupulous as Joseph was in returning to the ancestral land of his tribe?

probably a little of both. 
 
---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually there is ample reason for Luke to have Jesus conceived someplace other than Bethlehem (tho not necessarily Nazareth).  One of the major themes of Luke's nativity story is to foreshadow that Jesus will be the Lamb of God who is to be sacrificed to atone for our sins.  Hence, shepherds are brought in to observe the newborn child while his parents are living where animals would normally be kept and he is lying in a manger.  If Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem, there would be no reason for Jesus to be born in such rustic circumstances.

That's the major pitfall of arguing something must be true because there was no reason to make it up. Someone else might come up with a reason you didn't think of.

Well, that’s a lot of added convolution simply for the purpose of having a baby lying in a feeding trough…but my point was that adding that level of historical convolution creates way more risk than it solves.  For example, the book of Luke is explicitly addressed to a Roman official, so starting the book off with a fictional story about a census including the timing of three named Roman officials and details of the requirement for Jews to return to their rightful home would put the credibility of the account at EXTREME risk. 

Bottom line, who was Luke attempting to impress with this supposedly fictional story of a census-trek?!  If he were attempting to win over the uneducated, certainly this story is way too much effort.  And if he were attempting to win over someone with any level of knowledge of the time period (like the Roman official it is addressed to), they would certainly see right through any errors naming which Roman leaders were involved and the requirements of the census.

[The Mikado]

Ok, so you don’t know much about the Old Testament…no big deal, I can help:  The Israelites under Moses WANDERED for 40 years, meaning they didn’t make a bee-line to the Promised Land.  But they did in fact reach the Promised Land TWO YEARS after the Exodus and sent in 12 spies to scout the land for 40 days, but only two of the spies (Caleb and Joshua) reported they could take the land, the other 10 spies convinced the majority of the Israelites not to attack the land…in response, God had Israel wander in the desert 40 years, one year for every day the spies scouted the land, until that cowardly generation had died off.

So, your statement that the nation of Israel could only travel 9 miles a year is EXTREMELY IGNORANT!!

You might as well add on that the Book of Joshua has the Israelites entering Canaan from the east to the west crossing the Jordan River, and that their earlier turning back by Edom (in the northern Sinai) and their subsequent march through the lands of Moab (in the southern parts of modern Jordan) imply a sort of horseshoe route where they go northwest, then northeast.  The implication that the story has them going very slowly northwards and that it somehow took 40 years is not really borne out by the itinerary in Numbers.

EDIT:



Not sure about this image, because IIRC the Israelites were denied passage through Edom (hence the detour through Moab), but it does show the sort of circuitous route Numbers describes.

[DemPGH]

Where this discussion is now is a debate about how reliable the Bible is historically; i.e., in recording events at the dawn of written history. And that could be debated ad nauseam because what can be verified are little bits and pieces and generalities. Early written histories, even through the Middle Ages, tend to exaggerate and mythologize rather ordinary events, maybe because people want to find in them special meaning, but nonetheless it is a fascinating debate for specialists.

There is no question, though, that there are a plethora of contradictions, a myriad number of items that cannot be substantiated (like the Exodus itself), and items that do no withstand critical scrutiny.

[To The Cliffs!]

coupe of notes:

1)   The Egyptian papyrus census notation also states the reason why Joseph would have to bring Mary with him, as each family member had to be registered:  “I register Pakebkis, the son born to me and my wife, Taas¬ies and Taopis in the 10th year of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator [Emperor], and request that the name of my aforesaid son Pakeb[k]is be entered on the list”


2)   Luke was really good at nailing down which officials were ruling during a given timeframe and how long they had been reigning.  Examples:

Luke 3:1 "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert. "

3)   If Luke was attempting to associate the census of 6AD with the birth of Jesus, then all sorts of problems arise:

A)   Matthew explicitly places Jesus’ birth within the life and reign of Herod the Great, who died 10 years BEFORE the census of 6AD, and before the reign of Herod Archelaus.  

B)   MOST IMPORTANTLY, if Luke is stating Jesus was born in 6AD, then Luke is contradicting himself as Luke states Jesus was conceived during the reign of Herod the Great:

Luke 1:5 “In the time of Herod king of Judea…”

Also, it is Luke that states Jesus was about 30 when he began his ministry:

Luke 3:23 “Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry.”

And from Luke 3:1 above, “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar “ places the beginning of John the Baptists ministry around 27-29AD (two year variance is due to the fact Tiberius shared a 2-year co-regency with Augustus beginning in A.D. 12, but the first official year of his rule began in A.D. 14 with Augustus’ death).

But, if Jesus were born sometime after the census in 6AD, then he would have been only 21 years old in 27AD and only 23 years old in 29AD…way too young to round up to 30 years old!!

So, OBVIOUSLY, Luke is NOT referring to the census of 6AD, but to a census Augustus ordered earlier.  And putting it all together leads one to conclude Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great sometime around 6BC-4BC…which would have made Jesus as young as 30-32 years old in 27AD (or as old as 32-34 years old in 29AD).

I’ve leaned toward 30AD as the year that best fits the events surrounding Jesus’ death, which took place  prior to a high Sabbath (which does not necessarily fall on the weekly Sabbath)and his resurrection early on the first day of the week, in order to have Jesus in the tomb for a full 3 days and nights (which you can’t get to if Jesus died on a Friday)… so a three year ministry would place the start of Jesus’ ministry in 27AD.

So, my best guess chronology is as follows:

7-6 B.C. John the Baptist is born.
6 B.C. Census, journey to Bethlehem, Birth of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem, presentation at the temple, return to Nazareth
6-4 B.C.  some time within these two years, they leave Nazareth and go back to Bethlehem where they would be living in a house when found by the Magi.
4 B.C. Flight to Egypt, slaughter of the innocents, death of Herod the Great
>4 B.C…return from Egypt to Nazareth (Joseph is stated to have chosen not to return to Judea because Herod’s son was ruling).
>4 B.C. – 27 A.D.  Jesus lives in Nazareth
27 A.D. John the Baptist begins ministry, followed shortly by the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, making Jesus 32 years old (if born in 6BC, 30 years old if born in 4BC)…32 is close enough to be considered “about 30” without too much argument.
30 A.D. Trial, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (35 years old if born in 6BC, 33 if born in 4BC)

[The Mikado]

There's this bizarre tendency to treat the first millennium BCE as somehow being prehistory and outside of the realm of historic thought.  I mean, King David is roughly contemporaneous with the Duke of Zhou (whose reign basically overlaps with the traditional dates of Saul).  Much like one might question whether the last Shang Emperor was really a cannibal like Confucius alleges, you're welcome to question the Israelites' records.  Similarly, Shalmaneser V's destruction of the Northern Kingdom of Israel in the 720s roughly corresponds to the death of (the often-questioned) Romulus and Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Judah happened at the same time as Laozi (another person often questioned as having actually existed) wrote his Dao De Jing. 

No one obnoxiously shouts that Romulus or the Emperor Xin of Shang or Laozi are mythical before discussing their relevance because it is utterly irrelevant just as much as Moses' existence is.  What matters is that the Israelites and later the Jews clearly believed that Moses existed just like the Romans did with Romulus, and how that shaped the development of their culture, a story clearly told (from the victor's point of view) in the latter part of the OT, much like the tyrannical cannibal Xin Emperor had to exist for the just Duke of Zhou to exist as a model for Confucian leaders or the tyrannical Romulus to pave the way for the just lawgiver King Numa to provide a model for Roman leaders.

 No professor of Phoenician history will point out that Ezekiel didn't exist before quoting Ezekiel's description of Tyre in Ezekiel 27 as evidence of what Tyre's contemporaries thought of it, or the Book of Nahum as an example of how unpopular Assyrian rule was with its vassals.  To treat the Old Testament as being without value as a historical document is a pretty blind approach to history, as A. what people believed is in many ways more important than what actually happened in terms of figuring out what drives them as a society, and B. Much of its political commentary on Judah's neighbors is in fact very relevant indeed.  Isaiah's prediction that allying with Egypt against Assyria was a vain move ("Behold, you are trusting in Egypt, that broken reed..." etc.) is a good example of how Judah, as a state between strong Mesopotamian-based and Nile-based empires, constantly had to choose between strong protectors and in Isaiah's day chose very poorly.  The entire book of Ezra is the account of Ezra trying to force a people, fresh from exile in Babylon, to actually begin following Moses' decrees and is a useful indication that even as late as 500 before the common era much of the rituals that would characterize Judaism were absent, in Ezra, the Jews were shocked to realize that there was a festival (Sukkot, the Feast of the Tabernacle) ordained by the Law of Moses that they had never heard of that they were supposed to be celebrating that very day.  What that story says more than anything is how absent Sukkot was from Jewish rituals to that point, and why Ezra's decree that people read from the Torah throughout the year is so crucial in forming a society based on those rules (and why the story of Ezra is still read every year on Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year).

[To The Cliffs!]

No one obnoxiously shouts that Romulus or the Emperor Xin of Shang or Laozi are mythical before discussing their relevance because it is utterly irrelevant just as much as Moses' existence is.  What matters is that the Israelites and later the Jews clearly believed that Moses existed just like the Romans did with Romulus

You mean Jesus and the Apostles treated the history recorded within the OT as the true historical record?!...LOL, what a bunch of crazy "fundamentalists" they were!

[DemPGH]

There's this bizarre tendency to treat the first millennium BCE as somehow being prehistory and outside of the realm of historic thought.  I mean, King David is roughly contemporaneous with the Duke of Zhou (whose reign basically overlaps with the traditional dates of Saul).  Much like one might question whether the last Shang Emperor was really a cannibal like Confucius alleges, you're welcome to question the Israelites' records.  Similarly, Shalmaneser V's destruction of the Northern Kingdom of Israel in the 720s roughly corresponds to the death of (the often-questioned) Romulus and Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Judah happened at the same time as Laozi (another person often questioned as having actually existed) wrote his Dao De Jing. 

No one obnoxiously shouts that Romulus or the Emperor Xin of Shang or Laozi are mythical before discussing their relevance because it is utterly irrelevant just as much as Moses' existence is.  What matters is that the Israelites and later the Jews clearly believed that Moses existed just like the Romans did with Romulus, and how that shaped the development of their culture, a story clearly told (from the victor's point of view) in the latter part of the OT, much like the tyrannical cannibal Xin Emperor had to exist for the just Duke of Zhou to exist as a model for Confucian leaders or the tyrannical Romulus to pave the way for the just lawgiver King Numa to provide a model for Roman leaders.

 No professor of Phoenician history will point out that Ezekiel didn't exist before quoting Ezekiel's description of Tyre in Ezekiel 27 as evidence of what Tyre's contemporaries thought of it, or the Book of Nahum as an example of how unpopular Assyrian rule was with its vassals.  To treat the Old Testament as being without value as a historical document is a pretty blind approach to history, as A. what people believed is in many ways more important than what actually happened in terms of figuring out what drives them as a society, and B. Much of its political commentary on Judah's neighbors is in fact very relevant indeed.  Isaiah's prediction that allying with Egypt against Assyria was a vain move ("Behold, you are trusting in Egypt, that broken reed..." etc.) is a good example of how Judah, as a state between strong Mesopotamian-based and Nile-based empires, constantly had to choose between strong protectors and in Isaiah's day chose very poorly.  The entire book of Ezra is the account of Ezra trying to force a people, fresh from exile in Babylon, to actually begin following Moses' decrees and is a useful indication that even as late as 500 before the common era much of the rituals that would characterize Judaism were absent, in Ezra, the Jews were shocked to realize that there was a festival (Sukkot, the Feast of the Tabernacle) ordained by the Law of Moses that they had never heard of that they were supposed to be celebrating that very day.  What that story says more than anything is how absent Sukkot was from Jewish rituals to that point, and why Ezra's decree that people read from the Torah throughout the year is so crucial in forming a society based on those rules (and why the story of Ezra is still read every year on Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year).

The problem with the Bible, and the reason why everyone treats it with the skepticism it more than deserves, is that it too haphazardly weaves nonsense and incredible stories (supernatural) with other accounts that are perfectly believable, like in Judges or II Kings.

Example: the Bible is consistently VERY superstitious about weather. Violent weather is construed as an act of God, even storms. I think in every instance. And then you have stories like Sodom and Gomorrah. Joshua prays that the Earth stand still, and so on. But then there are the acceptable historical accounts as per II Kings. Those things are too easily interweaved with "acts of God," which I think is because people felt (and feel) compelled to invent meaning for events that might be significant for them personally. Down to "God reunited me with an old buddy today" and things like that.

Then there is probably the more significant problem of exaggeration, which I noted in a post above. Early historians LOVE to exaggerate almost everything - maybe out of pride, maybe out of jingoism, maybe out of a need to "really have the story." If any exodus happened, for example, it was probably someone leading a group of nomads across the desert. Maybe that took on additional meaning to someone, maybe someone felt pride over it, maybe it was folklore (like King Arthur), or maybe they just made it up.

But that's why the OT / Bible is treated with such skepticism, at least from my perspective.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

For those of you who are saying there's no historical evidence of the Exodus:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/chariots-in-red-sea-irrefutable-evidence/
http://bibleprobe.com/exodus.htm

[You are responsible]

The bible (or any other religious text, for that matter) says exactly what you want it to say.

Already knew that.

[John Dibble]

Ok, let's examine the evidence, shall we?

For those of you who are saying there's no historical evidence of the Exodus:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/chariots-in-red-sea-irrefutable-evidence/

Irrefutable? Hardly. It's a known hoax:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2012/06/chariot-wheels-in-the-red-sea-hoax-persists.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

References the same known fraudster's work on the same subject. Doesn't exactly lend credence to the rest of what it has to say.

[DemPGH]

Yeah - Oldie, these hoaxes are honestly all over the place. But assuming it's not, Occam's razor can help debunk a lot of these things; the razor says that you should not make assumptions beyond prosaic ones, and at that limit assumptions to only what you need to most simply and most prosaically explain something.

The Shroud of Turin is a picture perfect example. Bet real money, and a lot of it, that that was a pious hoax (which was actually explained a few years ago) rather than the imprint of a resurrected body's heat or life force or whatever it was supposed to be.

[Insula Dei]

Actually, Ockham's razor requires you to not postulate superfluous entities.

[DemPGH]

Actually, Ockham's razor requires you to not postulate superfluous entities.

Never heard it put that way, but if one is inclined to accept that definition I suppose it's just another way to say it.

[DC Al Fine]

Actually, Ockham's razor requires you to not postulate superfluous entities.

From whence cometh matter?

[kobidobidog]

Religions wanted horror.  Religious people pierced Jesus. Pastors, and priests will not tell you that. They are to busy perverting scripture telling you lies about hell when Gods glory is hell to evil . Lying about circumcision when it is the heart God is concerned with,  and lying about s who are the sodomites when they had religious practices read KJV Isaiah 1. verse 15 is abundantly clear. Religion lies about the words abominable defiled perverted mean too.  It seems it is the job of religions to skew the truths of the bible and leave truths out so no one know what the truth really is.  People are busy working,and when they stop work go to by brain washed hypnotized by religious people telling you with you in a Pew not having time to do your own research to see what is true, and what is not true. I have the time. Part of what I can show you.
People have much to learn. Defiled, 4, abominable 11 things, perverted,15, naughty, 5. All are not what religions taught, James:1 20 - 21, Pro: 6:12, Pro: 17: 4, Jer: 24,2, Sam: 17,28, zero about any sex or nudity. Pro: 17:23, Pro: 15 4, Job 6 - 30, Pro: 12 -8, Isa: 30 -12, 1 Tim: 6 -5, Deut: 16 -19, Job 8 -3, Jer: 23 -36, Gal: 1 -7, Ecc:, 5 -8, Mic: 3 -9, Pro: 19 1, Pro: 4 24, Pro: 3, 32, Pro: 12; 22, Pro: 20 :10, Pro: 6;16, Heb: 12:15: Isa: 59 -3, Mat: 15 - 11, Mark, 7 - 15, Mark 13:14.
Religions misinformed you as to what hell is. God glory seen as if it was fire = hell. to evil. KJV 1 John 1;5, God is light. Heb; 12:29; a consuming fire. James 1:17, Father of lights, Hell is the glorified face of God Moses could not look at or become ashes, makes the earth to have no more sea, melts elements, consumes the wicked around the city of God rev, 20. Hell is not a place. No lost no lake of fire. Gods light is good to those that love to do good.
9 places in KJV says the heart figuratively is to be circumcised not the penis tip at all. Deuteronomy 30:6, Deuteronomy 10:16 ;Jeremiah 4:4 , Jeremiah 9:26; Colossians 2:11-15;Acts 7:51;Leviticus 26:41;Romans 2:29, Romans 3 >> 30, This is what I mean by having to think diffidently.

[kobidobidog]

No contradictions affecting eternal salvation are in the KJV.  The accuser of God is the devil who is all bad things being deviant in the way he lies being abominable with his hateful froward lair  misrepresenting God defiling the souls of people because the devil is defiled perverting truth being naughty with his froward lies wherever he can to try to make God look like Satan is.