Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Is Luke Wrong About the Time of Jesus' Birth? - Come Reason Ministries

On John Loftus blog Debunking Christianity, I was challenged by Evil Don the Pirate to explain the following  apparent contradiction in the Gospels.  He stated the challenge thusly:




Here's a contradiction from the gospels you can try to explain. Matthew has Jesus born during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE. Luke has Jesus born during the year of the Census under Quirinius. We know that Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria in 6 CE and Josephus confirms that this is when the census was taken. Which gospel writer got it correct? 

I sent him the following link: Is Luke Wrong About the Time of Jesus' Birth? - Come Reason Ministries

As you might imagine Evil Don does not agree with  the answer. Amazingly instead of just saying he disagreed and that I'm stupid for accepting the answer given, he actually gave five reasons for not believing this answer. Let's go through his reasoning.

Marcus, you aren't dealing with this honestly. If you had taken a few minutes to think critically about that article you posted to, you would see what is wrong with it. But you didn't. You found someone who confirmed what you wanted to believe and assumed it must be correct.
The first problem: the apologist at that site takes liberties with the wording of the verse. A better translation is this: "In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." The problem is clear now isn't it?

Let's look at the verses Luke 2:1-2 from many different translations:

1In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) (NIV)

1And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
 2(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) (KJV)


 1Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of  all the inhabited earth.  2This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria (NASB)


 1 And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. (NKJV)


Do I see a discrepancy here? Nope Not really.  Maybe Evil Don would like to clarify. The only difference between the KJV and the newer translations is that the KJV says Cyrenius was governor of Syria and the newer versions say Quirinius was governor of  Syria..Cyrenius was his Greek name. Quirinius was his Latin name. I have found another great source that bears quoting:



History records that Varus was governor of Syria from about 7 B.C. to about 4 B.C. and was not a trustworthy leader. However, Cyrenius was a notable military leader. During the census of 8-7 B.C., Augustus entrusted Cyrenius with Palestine, effectively superseding the authority and governorship of Varus by appointing Cyrenius to a place of special authority. Cyrenius administered in Syria on two separate occasions, once while prosecuting the military action against the Homonadensians between 12 and 2 B.C., and later beginning about A.D. 6. A Latin inscription discovered in 1764 has been interpreted to refer to Cyrenius as having served as governor of Syria on two occasions.

History records that Cyrenius was on assignment in Syria during this time and was one of the few trusted leaders. It is probable that Varus was on his way out while Cyrenius was taking charge of matters during Luke's narration.




The second problem: The multiple censuses of Augustus were for Roman citizens. Judea was not even a Roman province under Herod. It was a client kingdom. There is historical evidence of any kind indicating that Rome ever conducted a census of Judea prior to 6 CE.


There is also no historical evidence that there were no censuses prior to 6 BC. You can't assume that there was nothing just because we have no documentation.  And even if you want to argue that there was only one census the facts given in the link above more than covers the problem.





Third problem: Josephus makes it very clear when the census was taken, why, and by whom. He wrote "Now Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to be a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money." He records no other census of Judea (as does no one else).

 Cyrenius and Quirinius were the same person. Josephus is not contradicting Luke nor Matthew. 

Fourth problem: The apologist gives no evidence of any other censuses in Judea. He merely asserts that previous censuses of other areas are evidence that censuses were taken in Judea as well. What he fails to emphasize is that the other censuses are recorded history, whereas the supposed Judean censuses are not.

 Um...still arguing from absence. You can't honestly draw such a conclusion when you don't have enough information. The thing is that there is evidence from around 3 BC that do mention a Census in Judea. Check the same link from above.


Armenian historian Moses of Khorene (Armenian History 2:26) says that in 3 B. C. Roman authorities came to Armenia to set up images of Caesar Augustus in the temples of the area. These same sources state that it was the registration mentioned in Luke which brought them there. The purpose of this registration was to record an official declaration of allegiance from all of his subjects to present to Caesar Augustus in celebration of his Silver Jubilee.

Fifth problem: This one is especially important, so pay close attention. There is absolutely no justification anywhere in Luke for supposing that the census is any other than the one he is clearly referring to. Do you understand that? The census Luke describes matches the one (and only) census we know about in Judea. The only justification (and this is typical of Bible harmonizers) for supposing an earlier census is the Christian dogma that the gospels can't possibly contradict each other. There is no other way to justify the idea that Luke was not referring to the 6 CE census, which he clearly was. 

Of course I understand Don's argument. The problem is he's wrong. I just provided justification for understanding that there was more than one census. Something else that I think Evil Don has not thought about is that such a census would take more than one year to complete. I mean even with all the technology today, we can't complete a national census in one year and America is a lot smaller than the Roman Empire was at that time. Some people answer this question by pointing out that any census happening in 6 AD was started much earlier...like maybe 8-6 BC!

Sorry....well....let me be honest I'm not sorry. It's fun to watch people twisting in the wind when they look for a reason to reject scripture. It's fun because you see the Bible validating itself as true...even if that means everyone else is wrong. The Bible is not inerrant because of Christian dogma. It's inerrant because it's true.



Enhanced by Zemanta

Today on Radio Free Geneva!

Today, August 24, James White reviewed the new third edition of Norman  Geisler's book Chosen But Free, I read a previous edition and I wanted to know how this edition is different from the one I read. I was hoping that there would be improvements because the book there was so much in the book with which I disagreed. But those hopes seem to have been dashed. I read Chosen But Free (CBF) and then I read James White's rebuttal The Potter's Freedom (POF). POF is a masterpiece. It is really well-written and explains where he disagrees with Geisler and why. It makes a great text book for anyone who wants to study the history of thought and the arguments between the rival views of Calvinism and Arminianinsm. The program today is a great companion to reading the book. I really wish Norman Geisler would formally debate James White or RC Sproul on these things.

Today on Radio Free Geneva!
Enhanced by Zemanta

Peter Stravinskas Threatens to Sue Alpha and Omega Ministries

I just read a blog post from James White in which he reports that Peter Stravinskas wants to sue him and his ministry. I'm amazed by this. But once you watch the clip is shouldn't be surprising why Stravinskas is angry. I think that James White has made a very valid point:
So if Peter Stravinskas wants to "warn" Roman Catholics against debating me, let me add a few items. If you want a debate where your opponent does not study your position nor accurately represent your position, do not debate James White. If you want a debate where the resultant video recordings are not given wide distribution or clips allowed to be posted on YouTube, do not debate James White. Meanwhile, let's ponder the real reason why Peter Stravinskas wants control over video clip posting of any debates:


Follow the link below to see all of Dr. White's comments.

Peter Stravinskas Threatens to Sue Alpha and Omega Ministries
Enhanced by Zemanta

Debunking Christianity: Bishop Spong: "Hell is the Invention of the Church"

John Lofuts posted a video of John Shelby Spong explaining that "hell" was invented by the church. He doesn't think that there is any warrant for Christians to believe in Hell. Loftus wrote:
Evangelicals you are wrong, listen to Spong. ;-)
I've seen evangelicals change what they believe during my lifetime and I predict they will embrace Spong's views in 30-40 more years. Evangelicals are already embracing annihilationism, so why not? Watch him below:


The problem is that Jesus spoke about Hell more than He spoke about Heaven. Loftus is right that there are some people who call themselves "Christians" who have embraced annihilationism - meaning that people who die in their sins simply cease to exist and that there is no hell. This is not what the Bible says. Spong is wrong. Pure and simple. It's a heretical position and not something that Christians have believed over the past 2000 years ago. I don't really care what Spong thinks if he is going to contradict Jesus. Spong didn't die for me and take my sins away. Jesus did. What Jesus says carries more weight. Listen to Spong instead of Jesus and you will see just how wrong he is.

Debunking Christianity: Bishop Spong: "Hell is the Invention of the Church"
Enhanced by Zemanta

DEA Looking For People Who Can Translate "Ebonics" - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob

I just could not resist linking to this story. I do agree that not all black people can understand every single slang term out on the street. I know I don't. The article is interesting. I should have seen this one coming. I especially like the clip from "Airplane" embedded in the post. I wonder if the DEA ever saw this and decided it was a good idea.

Compose

DEA Looking For People Who Can Translate "Ebonics" - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob
Enhanced by Zemanta