Sam Harris interview with Bart Ehrman

7,220 Views | 132 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by titan
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So leaving errant dates, misquotes of previous books, quotings of non existant or lost books, and absolute contradictions is worth all the souls that will be lost to eternal misery because their existence kept so many from believing?

7nine
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
You are reading alot into that.


Quote:

all the souls that will be lost to eternal misery because their existence kept so many from believing?
That kind of mega accent on some inerrancy of minutiae is a very recent phenomena. Let me re-phrase what trying to get at. Aggrad08 used a very good word that captures something that has long disturbed me about these kind of debates. "Maximal definitions" is not what you see the ancients using that much. I know they are legion these days, but you just don't see them taking that approach, without for a second doubting God's power. They were not bothered by some question of whether the days were literal in Genesis or meant some kind of short-hand for a "divine day".

All I am saying is the Church feeling and even any detached observation will show the same thing -- is that the scriptures are remarkably sound for what they try to convey. The wisdom and simple innate truth of so much of what they have to say is evident. When reviewing ancient accounts, the `maximal' burden that Aggrad spoke of is curiously absent. It seems to me to have been more driven by the all or nothing clashes after the Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment. In many ways the whole hyper-skepticism and insistence on literal of the 19th thru present is a child of those times, the same pattern. Maybe it was a bit earlier, a product of the fracture of the East and West -- each becoming less without the other.
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So the god of the Bible is not much of a forward thinker? I guess that makes sense that Jesus would say that the current generation would see the return then.

People of pre-enlightenment were oft to believe pretty much anything. Hell, even after the enlightenment... You think things like the Salem Witch trials were the exception and not the rule?

It is not a good argument for the validity and accuracy of the Bible to rest it on the beliefs of unenlightened people of years past.
7nine
DirtDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

So leaving errant dates, misquotes of previous books, quotings of non existant or lost books, and absolute contradictions is worth all the souls that will be lost to eternal misery because their existence kept so many from believing?


Errant dating? Can you please provide the one that makes the strongest case in your opinion for me to investigate?

Have you ever considered the time stamp of the events on the day Jesus died. The hours of the day mentioned, the eclipse? Modern software can replicate the position of the sun and moon through out history. Do the time markers on the day of the crucifixion line up? I think they do, and we can it's been demonstrated.

Messiah is cut off:
Taking a direct approach, let us assume that the "sevens" are seven years. Gabriel told Daniel that after the decree to rebuild, there would be "seven sevens" (which is 49), plus "sixty-two sevens" (which is 434). After these 483 years, the Anointed One would be cut off. If the prophecy is true, this would be the year of the crucifixion.
Remember that in ancient times, our modern calendar system was not in use. In other prophetic passages a year of 360 days is used (3). To convert to our modern system which uses the longer solar year, we must divide by the time it takes for Earth to orbit the Sun, which is 365.24 days. This yields 476 years on our calendar (4).
We now have a number of years, but when do we start the countdown? Gabriel said to count "from the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem." When was that? The prophet Nehemiah records such a decree, and he dates it as the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (5). On our calendar, that date is 444 BC (6). Counting 476 years from 444 BC, and remembering that there is no year numbered "zero" AD, we discover what Gabriel told Daniel: the Messiah would be cut off in 33 AD.
This stunning prophecy, made over 500 years before Christ was born, is consistent with all of the other evidence we have seen. So, we have increasing confidence that Jesus was crucified on April 3, 33 AD. But the "clincher," perhaps the most powerful evidence, is astronomical. Let's consider Peter's argument.

Misquotes from previous book? Example. How does this example make the case? What do you do with the verifiable quotes? Jesus quoting Psalm 22 written thousands of years ealier? Have you read through Psalm 22?

Quotings of non existant or lost books: I would consider removing this from your argument. Quoting from a "lost book" assumes that the book existed at one point however we don't have it today. This is not an argument for innacuracy. Quoting from a non-existant book? Non existant book in whose eyes? How many of books existed in history that we do not have records of today?


Quote:

So leaving errant dates, misquotes of previous books, quotings of non existant or lost books, and absolute contradictions is worth all the souls that will be lost to eternal misery because their existence kept so many from believing?
I once thought the Bible had errors and contradictions. I spent months wrestling with certain ones all to find out I was making the mistake in the preconceived assumptions I made about the passage. I'm on the other side of the fence now.

Does a mis-copied date negate the facts of the life of Jesus, his death, and resurrection? Nope.

Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fightin TX Aggie said:

I looked for a wonderful essay written by an apologist who has debated Ehrman, but I couldn't find it. So, I'll give you this.

Most like Ehrman face one or all of three barriers to belief.

1) Emotional (They've had a bad experience with Christianity.)
2) Intellectual (Rational doubts)
3) Volitional (There's a reason they don't want to be subject to God)

Ehrman's questions have long been answered. He mostly now has volitional objections to God, and his public presence has probably led to some emotional objections as well.

But don't be fooled by his scholarship. He sells cheap scholarship to the unwitting.
LOL. Good grief.
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Errant dating? Can you please provide the one that makes the strongest case in your opinion for me to investigate?

Have you ever considered the time stamp of the events on the day Jesus died. The hours of the day mentioned, the eclipse? Modern software can replicate the position of the sun and moon through out history. Do the time markers on the day of the crucifixion line up? I think they do, and we can it's been demonstrated.
Well there are many examples of different dates and times, but also several that are times given subject to other events which contradict, which has nothing to do with the position of the sun and moon.

A good list on date/time contradictions can be found here.http://bibviz.com/#type:Time


Quote:

Quotings of non existant or lost books: I would consider removing this from your argument. Quoting from a "lost book" assumes that the book existed at one point however we don't have it today. This is not an argument for innacuracy. Quoting from a non-existant book? Non existant book in whose eyes? How many of books existed in history that we do not have records of today?


The problem with that is if you believe the Bible to be the word of God, and part of that word quotes other "words of God" why wouldn't God preserve those books as well? There is even scripture stating that God's word will never be lost, or something to that extent.


Quote:

I once thought the Bible had errors and contradictions. I spent months wrestling with certain ones all to find out I was making the mistake in the preconceived assumptions I made about the passage. I'm on the other side of the fence now.


Confirmation bias is a hell of a thing. It kept me a believer for years.



7nine
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S

Quote:

So the god of the Bible is not much of a forward thinker? I guess that makes sense that Jesus would say that the current generation would see the return then.
What said had nothing to do with what God is. I was saying I just don't see that great a concern -- the "maximal" approach -- on the part of those who were writing and interpreting Scripture. It stands out for its lack that some claim that in some computer-esque way (and we know that is not true either) the reproduction of the text, or the place names, etc, will be without any flaw. We have commentaries where that seems to be just a given, as now. I can't speak for others --- I just don't buy the maximal approach.

For me, the Bible amazes for all the things it tends to get right, and some of the facts or nuances are pretty obscure. When you discard the maximal worldview it holds up well compared to many others. It is at times even a form of history and ACTs for example fairly rigorous.


Quote:

It is not a good argument for the validity and accuracy of the Bible to rest it on the beliefs of unenlightened people of years past.


I see very little "enlightenment" in much of today's curriculum and teachings. What we DO have -- in spades - are infinitely better tools of record keeping and dissemination of information. It is a historian and archivist's dream -- but that makes the rampant stupidity and rafts of shallow thinking all the more noticeable and perplexing. So many arguments see against the Scripture aren't even to the second layer level yet of looking at primary sources. It just has a superficial hyperskepticism to it. It makes a greater deal of the kind of things that in many cases we would be ecstatic to have that much information on from the past.
DirtDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

So the god of the Bible is not much of a forward thinker? I guess that makes sense that Jesus would say that the current generation would see the return then.

Or people who read Jesus' words really struggle with trying to understand what he's saying.

"Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

Clarification
this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

futher clarification
until all these things take place

"This generation" refers to a future generation.
DirtDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

Well there are many examples of different dates and times, but also several that are times given subject to other events which contradict, which has nothing to do with the position of the sun and moon.

A good list on date/time contradictions can be found here.[url=http://bibviz.com/#type:Time][/url]http://bibviz.com/#type:Time
[url=http://bibviz.com/#type:Time][/url]
I would really like your favorite one for discussion and for the sake of time. Which one do you think makes the best case?


Quote:

The problem with that is if you believe the Bible to be the word of God, and part of that word quotes other "words of God" why wouldn't God preserve those books as well? There is even scripture stating that God's word will never be lost, or something to that extent.
I like really appreciate your thinking on this question.

So yes, I do believe the Bible to be the word of God. In reference to quotations we see at least 2 things:
1. Jesus and others quote from previously written inspired scriptures
2. Writers of scriptures quote from non-inspired sources available at the time.

Example of Poets being quoted
27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.' 29 Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.

Paul is taking one quote from a non-inspired source to point the audience to the true God. In others words, your source says we are God's children", if so, then we shouldn't think that Gods nature is like gold or silver or stone or an image formed by the art and through of man.

Paul understands their belief and is correcting it in a gentle way. There's every reason to understand what others believe and use that as a teaching tool with zero desire to validate all of the claims.

I don't believe any of God's words are lost.


Quote:

Confirmation bias is a hell of a thing. It kept me a believer for years.

Prodigals are always welcome back.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Clarification
this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

futher clarification
until all these things take place

"This generation" refers to a future generation.


It really doesn't. It's simply a ridiculous hoop to jump through. This generation in context is exactly like it sounds, and generation as translated means what it means in English. It renders the statement completely meaningless. If he meant I will not come until all these things take place be that when it may he would have said that.

"This generation shall not pass. " It's saying the current generation will not die out until something is complete. Saying some distant generation will not pass is nonsensical, it provided no information.

Further, in another gospel the sentiment is repeated but it says those standing here shall not taste death. Even CS Lewis admitted that this generation meant the people he was speaking to.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
DirtDiver said:


Quote:

So the god of the Bible is not much of a forward thinker? I guess that makes sense that Jesus would say that the current generation would see the return then.

Or people who read Jesus' words really struggle with trying to understand what he's saying.

"Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

Clarification
this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

futher clarification
until all these things take place

"This generation" refers to a future generation.
Hmm. That is remarkable if true. Certainly it confused some even at the time, but your take may be right.

So you are saying - (let's just stipulate one) - that Jesus is in effect saying, when you see these events [listed] happening all together --- THE generation [that one in the example, not the audience] that is witnessing those rapid-fire events, will also see it to the end---it will "wrap up" within that same generation's time? (Whether it be the generation around 2050 or 2230?
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Let's take the one Ehrman mentions in the podcast.

http://bibviz.com/when-was-jesus-crucified-sab.html

I realize it is easy to claim that it is but a trivial issue that one book says before Passover and one says after Passover when that's only a difference of 3 days or so at a time 2000 years ago. However, when we are talking about the Word of God, why would god allow for such an error. Because at least one of them would have to be wrong.
7nine
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S

Quote:

Further, in another gospel the sentiment is repeated but it says those standing here shall not taste death. Even CS Lewis admitted that this generation meant the people he was speaking to.
That is how I have always understood it too, yes. As a genuine paradox--- a puzzle that theologians have wrestled with. (The whole aMillennilal, Preterist, Dispensationalist, etc, all those terms for different takes on what was meant). And given the sheer magnitude and date of the events of 67-74 it remains strong the impression that it just didn't mean the physcial end of the earth, but might indeed have referred to the theological age that follows--hard to tell. But there is no doubt the 67-74 comes pretty close to what such an end would look like from the Hebrew perspective, and 133-135 finishes any doubts.
DirtDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

"This generation shall not pass. " It's saying the current generation will not die out until something is complete. Saying some distant generation will not pass is nonsensical, it provided no information.

This generation, which generation? The future generation I'm spealing about.

This generation meaning current generation is an interpretive option but not the best option given to the context due to the qualifiers.


Quote:


Further, in another gospel the sentiment is repeated but it says those standing here shall not taste death. Even CS Lewis admitted that this generation meant the people he was speaking to.
28 "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

What do some of these people see 6 days later?

Six days later Jesus *took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, and *led them up on a high mountain by themselves. 2 And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light. 3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. 4 Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, I will make three tabernacles here, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah." 5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The text seems to preclude such an interpretation it's explicit and literal. And it's clearly understood as such by the NT authors, the urgency and immanace of Jesus return is a major motif of the NT. So much so that it's inspired virtually every generation thence that their age is the last.
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

"This generation" refers to a future generation.
So then when he says "you" he is speaking to the future generation, as a response to the people there asking when "these things" will happen??
7nine
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Aggrad08 said:

The text seems to preclude such an interpretation it's explicit and literal. And it's clearly understood as such by the NT authors, the urgency and immanace of Jesus return is a major motif of the NT. So much so that it's inspired virtually every generation thence that their age is the last.
I agree it does seem to preclude that interpretation. That is why I found that post interesting. What can't be doubted is many believers than were `thrown off' by it too.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

This generation, which generation? The future generation I'm spealing about


It was not brought up before. There is no contextual "this". No one has ever said "this" without meaning currently. You have to bring up a future generation first and then you could after discribe it as "this" contextually. You are trying to replace this with there will be and context doesn't allow it.

Further it's a nonsensical statement. Further still it doesn't answer the question the man asked Jesus, when will this happen? This is the only interpretation by which useful information was provided, "no one knows the day or the hour but some of you will live to see it."

Yours is such an obvious post hoc excuse it can be casually dismissed.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Texaggie7nine said:

Quote:

"This generation" refers to a future generation.
So then when he says "you" he is speaking to the future generation, as a response to the people there asking when "these things" will happen??
Possibly, given that post above. It would be like asking, "what will be the signs that Mt. Rainier would erupt" --- and you reel them off, and you say "all of these will happen first" before it does and are necessary to it. That is not a forecast it will happen to them, or even for sure, their kids. If this is right, its an answer providing a forecast that is to be passed down to their children (though I admit, hundreds of generations later is just not what it `sounds like' as read that text!)

Lest the point be lost, I admit that it is a paradox. I had not heard that take above before, but it does solve some things.

On your other query,

Quote:


I realize it is easy to claim that it is but a trivial issue that one book says before Passover and one says after Passover when that's only a difference of 3 days or so at a time 2000 years ago. However, when we are talking about the Word of God, why would god allow for such an error. Because at least one of them would have to be wrong.


will put together a bit of something. It has an answer.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Texaggie7nine said:

Let's take the one Ehrman mentions in the podcast.

http://bibviz.com/when-was-jesus-crucified-sab.html

I realize it is easy to claim that it is but a trivial issue that one book says before Passover and one says after Passover when that's only a difference of 3 days or so at a time 2000 years ago. However, when we are talking about the Word of God, why would god allow for such an error. Because at least one of them would have to be wrong.
Texaggie7nine,

Here is one take, and I worked directly from Ehrman's examples on your link for clarity, and will expand on it in a follow-up post so it doesn't get muddled.

The best explanation have seen, (if you are wanting me to argue the Last Supper as a Passover meal) was that there are indications that some Pharisees, Galileans, and others reckoned a day from sunrise to sunrise (6 am to 6 am is a day). That Jesus-and-discples held to this schedule. That most Judeans, or here, specifically, Caiaphas' Sanhedrin schedule at the time -- reckoned from sunset to sunset. (6 pm to 6 pm is a day) [Neither of these of course, is the Roman/American `day' of midnight to midnight which can add a third confusing element for our time!].

The requirement was that the Passover lamb be slain on Day 14 "between the evenings" which Josephus said for the Temple was between the 9th and 11th hour (our 3-5pm) and eaten at night. Notice that doesn't bear on what a DAY is, and the fact that those varied is what may be key.

For conveience, I am going to call the sunrise-to-sunrise form `Galilean' and the sunset-to-sunset form `Judean'. [But these are just placeholder labels]

With that in mind, taking the examples,

Quote:

After noon on the day before the Passover meal

John 18:28
Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.



[This is daylight morning of Judean Day 14 (we are just over past 1/2 of the day)---Pilate is in fact being disturbed before the normal hour a Roman official would transition from `private' to `official life' and be "open to business" (around 10-ish).Under the rules the gathering could assemble in the forecourt of the Praetorium (a name given to any residence `made into the HQ'), in this case far far more likely to be Herod's Palace which Pilate occupied in earlier years, than the popular Fotress Antonia notion, but the debate of this location only impacts the "Via Dolorosa" ceremony.]




Quote:

John 19:14-16
And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!


[Day 14 remember is the day the lamb is slain. The number day specified in Exodus. (Number is important, far more than how the day start to finish is recokoned).]


Quote:


But they cried out, Away with [him], away with [him], crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led [him] away.


[We are now early afternoon, post 12pm of `Judean' Day 14. This is holding to the pattern of a preparation where the lamb will be slain around 3-5pm, so still Day 14, and consumed after sunset -- i.e. start of `Judean' Day 15.]



Quote:

Mid-morning on the day after the Passover meal
Mark 14:12
And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?


[This is after sunset on `Galilean' Day 14, which having begun at 6am Thursday is about 1/2 way over; the requirement to slay close to sunset, and eat at night is the thing]

Edit: I should add that because of the sheer volume and number of people in Jerusalem attending to fulfill the Passover sacrifices, it has been argued that an interval of spanning from the afternoon of one day to the afternoon of a second one is not only indicated by the difference sunrise-to-sunrise vs sunset-to-sunset definiton of a day does, but also was simply necessary for logistical reasons. To actually handle the `volume and numbers'. Whichever sect apply it to, it appears Jesus was using sunrise-to-sunrise, as many Saducees apparently did. (The Essenes, I am not sure?)

Quote:

Mark 15:25
And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

Have to wait on this one, to be honest. I have seen this solved, but unfortunately forget just now. I will add it if I find it. However, this is an example of where a non-maximal view is flexible enough--it could be conflating the third hour the trial began.
Amazing Moves
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

"This generation shall not pass. " It's saying the current generation will not die out until something is complete. Saying some distant generation will not pass is nonsensical, it provided no information.
But, but generations in the bible are considered much broader and longer lasting than what we consider them currently. They include entire genealogies.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
DirtDiver,


Quote:

This stunning prophecy, made over 500 years before Christ was born, is consistent with all of the other evidence we have seen. So, we have increasing confidence that Jesus was crucified on April 3, 33 AD. But the "clincher," perhaps the most powerful evidence, is astronomical. Let's consider Peter's argument.


Was there something more you meant to quote? Was interested to hear the "Peter's argument". As it was, that was interesting enough. I too, favor 33 AD/CE for the Crucifixion, and what is interesting is for secular evidence reasons different from what you cited. All the more striking for that.
Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So this incredibly convoluted "possibility" Makes more sense to you than the most obvious that the texts just contradict each other?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's not any more convoluted than daylight savings time.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Macarthur said:

So this incredibly convoluted "possibility" Makes more sense to you than the most obvious that the texts just contradict each other?
Its not really convoluted, not when you are "in it". Its just hard to explain retroactively without sounding that way.

I was answering TexAggie7nine's link on a line by line basis. But to phrase it differently, its really as simple as imagining one sect using sunrise-to-sunrise to mean a "day" and another using sunset-to-sunset. Both are known to have been used, and both "feel like a day" to any that think of day in terms of daylight. In some ways it is more logical than the way we have to actually track the transition at midnight into a new day if you think about it.

Take K2aggie's example. The state of Indiana is split (or used to be) in that part of it recognized daylight's savings time, and part did not. If you are living there, you grow up in it, it would be "routine". But explaining it to someone not using it could get convoluted.

The main objection of your idea of why not just "assume a contradiction"? Because in this case it makes no sense there would be. John is writing with considerable detail and accuracy of the time, and he had some of the Synoptics if not all, at his disposal. There is just not much reason he would contradict-- this isn't a smaller detail like some areas where may (or may not) contradict the Synotpics. There is every reason to believe it is more a product of the pov that John is writing from -- -from a `higher elevation' and explaining things to audiences more.

Or you can go with the other idea that it wasn't a Passover meal on Thursday, and some can make that fly. Either way, I don't think John contradicted the Synoptics. I think it is a pov issue.

Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That's a bit too many gymnastics to perform in order to preserve "the word" as without error. You would think, if God went through all that trouble to make sure the "word of God" was inerrant, He would make it clearly so and not require so many instances of unintuitive jumps in logic in order to make ends meet.
7nine
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Texaggie7nine said:

That's a bit too many gymnastics to perform in order to preserve "the word" as without error. You would think, if God went through all that trouble to make sure the "word of God" was inerrant, He would make it clearly so and not require so many instances of unintuitive jumps in logic in order to make ends meet.
What `gymnastics'. ?? You are skipping over the point -- we don't know what system they were using. You can't claim contradiction any more than you could for states now if you didn't know their daylight savings time schedule. Just because laid out the alternatives doesn't mean it is that complex. Anyone then would know if they reckon by sunrise or by sunset. Its simple. Just not by modern standards that had the benefit of the British fixing on a global level certain benchmarks. Hell, the Orthodox in some places still use a different YEAR calendar. Think when you hear `October Revolution' ? But it doesn't fall in our October.

Even today, we sometimes don't know the calendar or time being used by a given report from the past. The gospel writers were like most in failing to so usefully provide a clear indicator of the time they are using. (St.Luke does a pretty good job actually though). Take an example run into alot even now -- 12/5/18 ---- if we don't know for sure, we have a problem -- is this British UK usage of date for 12 May 2018, or American usage meaning December 5, 2018. That's all this is in all likelihood -- a lack of knowledge.

Also, note, I was not defending the maximal view--- I like Aggrad's word for that.
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It is still silly to argue that a book that is "the word of God" clearly makes confusing different statements which refer to actual events, some saying before, some saying after. I'm sure you could go through the entire list on that site I gave you and find ways to jump through hoops to make all the contradictions work if you are going to take into account human fallibility, erroneous recollection, and possible different uses of calendar systems by different authors, but you are apologizing for all this with the "word of God"?

Silly.
7nine
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S

Quote:

It is still silly to argue that a book that is "the word of God" clearly makes confusing different statements which refer to actual events, some saying before, some saying after.


Its not confusing if you are in the context. You keep ignoring the analogy. Is it for a purpose?


Quote:

I'm sure you could go through the entire list on that site I gave you and find ways to jump through hoops to make all the contradictions work


Actually I am not sure of that at all, nor would I try. It was not what I was doing. But this one I am. We just don't know what system was in use. Simple. And ludicrously common when having to look at something in the past.


Quote:

if you are going to take into account human fallibility, erroneous recollection, and possible different uses of calendar systems by different authors, but you are apologizing for all this with the "word of God"?

Silly.
I am not addressing any of that maximal claims except for the supposed "contradiction" here that probably doesn't exist. I have to wonder how many of the claimed `errors' and contradictions are of this variety if this is an example.

That is what is silly.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.