Why dosent God just pop up and say "Hi"

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


That's the point of the entire argument...showing that the Bible is not infallible.

lets put it this way - the faithfull should not base their faith on factually "infallible" Bible as their faith will be like a "house built on sand" - easily destroyed...

I guess we agree

[Ben Kenobi]

Matthew says the two Marys. Mark and John both say only Mary Magdelene. Luke says Cleopas and another.

Gee, maybe they only list their sources. None of the sources say that Mary Magdelene did not go to the grave, instead they provide different lists for the names that they know went.

1 Corinthians says Cephas!

1 Cor 15 says that Peter was one of the people to whom Christ appears. It does not say that Christ appeared to him first. The same for the other examples. No one Gospel records all the resurrection appearances, they record the ones for which they have testimonies.

And where were they? Matthew says one, outside the tomb on the door. In Mark they have to enter to see the man. Luke and John say two inside the tomb. So we now have three in the mix.

Different sources explain the difference in the places. One saw them inside the tomb, one saw them on the outside. Nothing preventing the angel from moving.

Are you saying the stone rolling was after they saw the resurrected Jesus?

Matthew starts with the women leaving, then with the rock rolling away. Remember the earlier discussion we had over the time of day that they left? Matthew cuts back to talk about the angel, and then cuts to the conversation between the angel and Mary Magdelene, without mentioning the arrival of Mary to the tomb. That's why I say that the passage does not proceed in a linear fashion.

Source? Luke says they were (as a group) terrified. John says they were (as a group) glad. Neither says some were this, some were that. Matthew also says they first see him on a mountain in Galilee, but the other three in a room in Jerusalem.

These couldn't be different appearances, now could they?

John says 10, Matthew, Mark and Luke say 11, 1 Corinthians says 12 (the new Cephas).

Paul in 1 Corinthians talks about, 'appeared to the Twelve.'

The Twelve refers to the twelve original apostles. The reason the Twelve are eleven has to do with the death of Judas.

The appearance to the 10 is a seperate appearance.

Luke says Bethany, Acts says Mt. Olivet.

Well, where is Bethany?

Luke 19:29

"As he approached Bethphage and Bethany at the hill called the Mount of Olives,"

So they are two different ways of referring to the same place.

In Matthew and Mark, he tells the women to tell them to go to Galilee. Luke and Acts has him telling them to stay in Jerusalem.

It would really help to cite passages... Different things they are talking about. Luke and Acts have Christ telling the disciples to preach to all nations, starting with Jerusalem. Matthew and Mark have Christ telling the women to tell the apostles that Christ will appear in Galilee.

Was he lying to Mary to get away from her cooties, or was she somehow tainted and less worthy than Thomas to touch him?

John 20:17

"Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father."

In the context, Christ wants Mary to go and tell the apostles that Christ has returned, rather than sitting and clinging on to him.

Or do you believe we can only recognize mistakes through guilt?

Through correction, we can recognise our mistakes, but guilt also helps us recognise when we have hurt someone.

Splitting post.

[Ben Kenobi]

SPLIT POST

Parables:

Matthew 13:13

"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand."

Oh, two more questions (you didn't answer my one about the parables) relating to the Old Testament:

What day of the month did Nebuchadnezzar enter Jerusalem?

Who was king of Babylon when it fell and the Jews were able to leave?

Cite verses. I'm not sifting through these questions otherwise. Too time-consuming, and the burden is on you to show contradictions.

Also, these are off topic when discussing the merits of the resurrection accounts.

As for KJV v. the NIV,
do you accept the portions in which they agree? I think that this is a smokescreen to avoid dealing with more fundamental issues.

What makes you trust the KJV as authoritative?

Secondly, all the accounts agree wholly on the important points, that Christ died, rose and appeared to his followers at different times.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
SPLIT POST

Right-o, I follow the split, will deal with the longer previous one later when I have more time.

Parables:

Matthew 13:13

"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand."

Whole context:

13:10
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
13:11
He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
13:12
For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13:13
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
13:14
And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
13:15
For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Seems like Jesus is saying he speaks in parables to deliberately confuse people, and therefore send them to Hell since they don't understand. Nice.

Cite verses. I'm not sifting through these questions otherwise. Too time-consuming, and the burden is on you to show contradictions.

Also, these are off topic when discussing the merits of the resurrection accounts.

They are on the original topic, which is Biblical contradictions/errors.

ANYhoo, I made a mistake when I said day of the month, I meant year:

Dan.1:1
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem.

Jer.25:1
In the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, that was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon.

A year makes a bit of a difference. But that's not all! This is also at odds with known history, as the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim was 606 BCE. Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king then, and didn't come to Jerusalem until 597 BCE. By that time, Jehoiachin was king, as Jehoiakim was dead.

The day of the month issue relates to the burning of the temple:

2 Kings
25:8 And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which is the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem:
25:9
And he burnt the house of the LORD, and the king's house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great man's house burnt he with fire.

Jeremiah
52:12
Now in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, which served the king of Babylon, into Jerusalem,
52:13
And burned the house of the LORD, and the king's house; and all the houses of Jerusalem, and all the houses of the great men, burned he with fire:

Did Nebuzaradan come on the 7th day, leave again and return on the 10th day, having perhaps left his wallet at home?

As for who was king at the time of the fall of Babylon, Daniel claims it was Belshazzar who was king of Babylon at the time (Dn 8:1), who is wrongly said to be the son of Nebuchadnezzar. But Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BCE and was succeeded by his son, Awil-Marduk (referred to in the bible as "Evilmerodach" [Kg 25:27 and Jer 52:31]). The next and last king of Babylon was Nabonidus who reigned from 556 to 539, when Babylon was conquered by Cyrus. It was Nabonidus, and not Belshazzar, who was the last of the Babylonian kings. Belshazzar was never a king and and was not the son (or any other relation) of Nebuchadnezzar. He was Nabonidus's son.

In addition to this, Daniel goes on to say that "Darius the Median" was the next king of the city. Who is this? As any ancient historian knows, it was Cyrus who conquered the Neo-Babylonian Empire and became the next king. There later was a Darius (521 BCE)--but this Darius was not remotely Median! The author of Daniel has bungled history quite badly.

As for KJV v. the NIV,
do you accept the portions in which they agree? I think that this is a smokescreen to avoid dealing with more fundamental issues.

What makes you trust the KJV as authoritative?

If they agree on text, they still have to deal with internal contradictions and being at odds with history, such as the two examples above. I can even point you to one of the more famous revisions of the NIV, the question of how large Nineveh was:

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1992/2/2city92.html

There is one Bible (that I am aware of) that actually supports a variation of this latest defense, and that is the NIV (New International Version, 1978). We find in it that "Nineveh was a very important city--a visit required three days." Since the NIV is likely to become a standard among conservatives, we need to examine its treatment of Jonah 3:3.

Dr. Edward P. Blair (The Illustrated Bible Handbook, 1987) informs us that all the translators of the NIV were expected to subscribe to the "high value of Scripture" set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Belgic Confession, and the Statement of Faith of the National Association of Evangelicals. When translators are hobbled with doctrine, doctrine will hobble the translation. Indeed, Dr. Blair gives us 12 examples in the NIV where translation has been so affected. Other examples, such as Isaiah 7:14 and Genesis 2:19, may be added to that list. Even an honest conservative, such as David O'Brien (Today's Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties, 1990) will admit that doctrine has intruded in places in the NIV.

Take a few moments and look at the modern Bible translations in a large library, if you will. You will find that the NIV is the odd man out in its handling of Jonah 3:3. Its rendering of this verse appears to be based on Stuart's translation, a rendition that has little scholastic support:

"There is no merit to Stuart's translation, "requiring a three-day visit," which depends on Wiseman's incongruous weaving of Assyrian evidence regarding diplomatic visits to royal cities.... Jonah is hardly sent to Nineveh to negotiate treaties or the like" (The Anchor Bible, Jonah, 1990, p. 230).

Thus, this rendering of Jonah 3:3 may be dismissed. It is one of those places in the NIV where doctrine has overridden good translation.

And I advocate the KJV because the KJV is widely regarded by theologians as being a more literal translation. However, there are more literal translations, such as Young's Literal. Can we agree to use that one instead?

Secondly, all the accounts agree wholly on the important points, that Christ died, rose and appeared to his followers at different times.

Yes, but the devil is in the details. If the details are inconsistent, the stories are questionabled, especially when the text is supposedly the word of an infallible being.

[Ben Kenobi]

Seems like Jesus is saying he speaks in parables to deliberately confuse people, and therefore send them to Hell since they don't understand.

Not really. Jesus speaks obliquely in the parables so that those whose hearts are open will understand the comparison. Jesus does not try to confuse, look at how carefully he has to explain the parables to the other disciples so that they fully understand! If he tried to confuse people, why would he take the steps to explain things to the disciples?

Dan.1:1
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem.

Jer.25:1
In the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, that was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon.

First year of Nebuchadnezzar's what? His control over Jerusalem. Jeremiah started prophesying in the first year that Nebuchadnezzar's reign over Jerusalem which should be the fourth year of Jehoiakim king of Judah.

No contradiction here.

Did Nebuzaradan come on the 7th day, leave again and return on the 10th day, having perhaps left his wallet at home?

Good question.
I don't know why there would be a difference in the parallel passages, though I will try to find out. It seems a minor detail. They have the year and the month correct.

who is wrongly said to be the son of Nebuchadnezzar.

The word 'son' here in Aramaic can also mean descendent, so no contradiction.

As for the term 'King', may also mean Viceroy.

Note Daniel 5:7

"The king called out for the enchanters, astrologers, and diviners to be brought and said to these wise men of Babylon, Whoever reads this writing and tells me what it means will be clothed in purple and have a gold chain placed around his neck, and he will be made the third highest ruler in the kingdom."

Why third and not second? Belshazzar served under Nabonidus, and could not offer his own position.

In addition to this, Daniel goes on to say that "Darius the Median" was the next king of the city. Who is this? As any ancient historian knows, it was Cyrus who conquered the Neo-Babylonian Empire and became the next king.

A thorny problem. Here are two different suggestions from Dr. Constable.

"However, Archer suggested that "Darius" may have been a title of honor in the Persian Empire as "Caesar" was in the Roman Empire, or, I might add, "Pharaoh" was in Egypt. If this was so, "Darius" could
refer to another man known in history by another name or names. The most likely possibility seems to me to have been Cyrus. This would account most naturally for the fact that Daniel referred to Darius as "king"
in chapter 6. Furthermore it would have been very unusual for a subordinate of Cyrus to divide the whole empire into 120 satrapies (v. 1).

Darius was probably called "the Mede" because he was of Median descent
(9:1).

Another possibility is that Darius is another name for Gubaru (Gobryas), a ruler of Babylon under Cyrus.
"In his dealings with his Babylonian subjects, Cyrus was
'king of Babylon, king of lands.' . . . But it was Gobryas the satrap who represented the royal authority after the king's [i.e., Cyrus'] departure [from Babylon]."

However, there are more literal translations, such as Young's Literal. Can we agree to use that one instead?

Never heard of it. Do you have any more information on the translation?

I'm leery of getting into these points, but if it increases your confidence in the historicity of scripture, than we will continue.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Not really. Jesus speaks obliquely in the parables so that those whose hearts are open will understand the comparison. Jesus does not try to confuse, look at how carefully he has to explain the parables to the other disciples so that they fully understand! If he tried to confuse people, why would he take the steps to explain things to the disciples?

Guess he should have picked smarter disciples?

But Jesus says he speaks in parables "lest" people whose hearts are closed understand him. Why would he do this? Doesn't he want those people to understand them so they can be saved?

First year of Nebuchadnezzar's what? His control over Jerusalem. Jeremiah started prophesying in the first year that Nebuchadnezzar's reign over Jerusalem which should be the fourth year of Jehoiakim king of Judah.

No contradiction here.

Uh, no. Jeremiah is saying the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign was the first year that Nebuchadnezzar was King of Babylon, which would mean that it would be impossible for King Nebby of Babylon to arrive at Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim's reign.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/jfb/2Ki/2Ki024.html

"1, 2. Nebuchadnezzar--the son of Nabopolassar, the founder of the Chaldee monarchy. This invasion took place in the fourth year of Jehoiakim's, and the first of Nebuchadnezzar's reign ( Jer 25:1 ; compare Jer 46:2 ).

You didn't address the historical fact that Nebby wasn't even king of Babylon in the third year of Jehoaikim's reign (606 BCE). On top of that, Nebby didn't take Jerusalem until 597 BCE. By this point, Jehoaikim was long dead.

One apologist theory is that the Babylonians came and beseiged the city in 606 BCE. This is still problematic, as there is no other historical record of this (the Babylonians would likely have noted this). It also fails to explain how Nebby could be responsible, since he wasn't king then (apologists posit it being a different Nebby who was king, but this is absurd and has not a jot of historical evidence. Nabopolassar was most certainly king of Babylon then). On top of that, even if the above were true and it was a failed seige, it would contradict the Bible, since it says rather explicitely that Nebby had control of Jerusalem at this point.

Good question.
I don't know why there would be a difference in the parallel passages, though I will try to find out. It seems a minor detail. They have the year and the month correct.

I have a good guess: One or both of the statements is wrong. This was because, like all of the Bible, passages were cobbled together from different sources with different authors that were written at different times. Does this mean the events didn't happen? No, of course not, they are substantianted. But it does make the infallibility of the Bible rather...questionable?

The word 'son' here in Aramaic can also mean descendent, so no contradiction.

Fanciful explanation, but do you have any evidence for this assertion, or is it wishful thinking? All standard translations say "son." If it could mean "descendant," why don't they use that to erase the apparent contradiction? Is there any other example in the Bible where this word is used to mean descendant instead of "son"?

It's still not true, as Belshazzar was of NO relation to Nebuchadnezzar.

As for the term 'King', may also mean Viceroy.

Once again, is there any evidence to support this interpretation, or is it wishful thinking? If you're going to postulate that any word in the Bible could mean something else, I think its pretty obvious where that line of thinking leads. This would render pretty much anything in the Bible into subjective mishmash. Dangerous route.

Note Daniel 5:7
"The king called out for the enchanters, astrologers, and diviners to be brought and said to these wise men of Babylon, Whoever reads this writing and tells me what it means will be clothed in purple and have a gold chain placed around his neck, and he will be made the third highest ruler in the kingdom."

Why third and not second? Belshazzar served under Nabonidus, and could not offer his own position.

That does not Belshazzar a king make, does it? If he was Nabonidus's viceroy, he was not the king.

A thorny problem. Here are two different suggestions from Dr. Constable.

"However, Archer suggested that "Darius" may have been a title of honor in the Persian Empire as "Caesar" was in the Roman Empire, or, I might add, "Pharaoh" was in Egypt. If this was so, "Darius" could
refer to another man known in history by another name or names.

Again, he says "may," but does he offer a shred of proof for this assertion? The notion that "Darius" was a title is ludicrous. No historian posits this, only apologists trying to weasel out of the Bible's bad history. If "Darius" were a title, why would we subsequently have kings named "Darius"? Wouldn't that make them "Darius Darius"? Where did the title come from, since Darius ruled after Cyrus? "Pharoah" was a title, but it was never the actual name of any ruler! This explanation holds little water.

The most likely possibility seems to me to have been Cyrus. This would account most naturally for the fact that Daniel referred to Darius as "king"
in chapter 6. Furthermore it would have been very unusual for a subordinate of Cyrus to divide the whole empire into 120 satrapies (v. 1).

I agree the king was probably Cyrus, but that the Bible is in error when it calls him Darius. Not infallible.

Darius was probably called "the Mede" because he was of Median descent
(9:1).

I already pointed out that Darius was not Medean. The Bible is flat out wrong if it claims he was. The fact is that "Darius the Mede" appears nowhere outside of the Bible.

Another possibility is that Darius is another name for Gubaru (Gobryas), a ruler of Babylon under Cyrus.
"In his dealings with his Babylonian subjects, Cyrus was
'king of Babylon, king of lands.' . . . But it was Gobryas the satrap who represented the royal authority after the king's [i.e., Cyrus'] departure [from Babylon]."

This is another fanciful explanation, but again, is there a shred of evidence for this? The Bible apologists seem to like to play fast and loose with names, but there's nothing to substantiate this assertion. Gobryas would never be referred to as a king, either. How would satrap Gubaru become King Darius?

Here's good commentary on the issue:

http://www.infidels.org/~ltaylor/bible-notes/Whitcomb-darius.html

Never heard of it. Do you have any more information on the translation?

I'm leery of getting into these points, but if it increases your confidence in the historicity of scripture, than we will continue.

http://www.ccel.org/bible/ylt/ylt.htm

I have confidence the Bible is historically accurate in many regards, but that is not the core issue--it is whether or not it is infallible. It certainly isn't, as it makes many historical errors.

To put it another way, until recently everyone assumed the events of the Iliad were fictional. Then along came the German archaelogist who excavated Troy and proved that many of the events described did indeed occur. Does that mean every event described occured? No. Does that mean the text is infallible? No. Does that mean Zeus, Hera, Ares, Athena, etc. are real and were manipulating these events? No.