# Logical Errors in the Bible? Show me! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 3, 2003, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-errors-in-the-bible-show-me/186145 "2003-07-03T23:33:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Rodrigo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Rodrigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rodrigo)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-errors-in-the-bible-show-me/186145/221 "2003-07-14T02:27:02Z")
Most ORTHODOX christian scholars (be they catholic, orthodox, anglican or protestant) agree that Q is a lot of baloney. After searching for more than 100 years it is still nowhere to be found. It is, OTOH, the burden of those who propose it to show it exists. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-errors-in-the-bible-show-me/186145/222 "2003-07-14T03:01:28Z")
No, **Rodrigo** it is NOT the consensus of mainstream Christian scholarship that Q is “baloney.” Please don’t make assertions without cites. It’s a fact, not a hypothesis that Matthew and Luke contain a number of sayings and passages that correspond word for word in Greek. Two independant translations of the sayings of Jesus from Aramaic would not correspond precisely. Moreover, the narrative framings around these sayings also correspond precisely in Greek. Two authors, working independently would not produce identical translations with identical narrative frames. It should also be noted that these passages are not always in the same chronological order and that it is possible to identify literary “seams,” (differences in vocabulary and style) between the Q material and the Lucan and Matthean material. The Q passages also reference the Greek Septuagint rather than the Hebrew, which again indicates an original composition in Greek rather than a translation from Aramaic. When the same standard of historical criticism is applied to Matthew and Luke as is applied to any other literary text, it is all but beyond any scholarly dispute that those two gospels used a common Greek source of written sayings. It would require supernatural intervention for this _not_ to be so. Objective scholarship must always opt for a natural explanation over the supernatural. If you want to dispute Q, you must prove divine intervention. Good luck. ---
**Author:** ![Rodrigo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Rodrigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rodrigo)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-errors-in-the-bible-show-me/186145/223 "2003-07-14T03:15:54Z")
I didn´t say mainstream, I said Orthodox. God forbid I become mainstream anytime soon. Couldn’t one just have copied from the other? isn’t that easier. 7Q5, a Qumran fragment dated at most AD45 quotes Mk6: 52-53. not a lot of time for a third source to have appeared. BTW, any ETA on when Q might be found even in a quote? I’ve even read from “Q” people that there was an “Early Q”, I guess its’s the MOA Q. And also, even if Q exists, it don’t change nothing. My beef with Q is that it is an excuse for denying everything in the NT. Thanks for accepting that the LXX was the source for NT quotes. ---
**Author:** ![Fuel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/df705f/32.png) [@Fuel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuel)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-errors-in-the-bible-show-me/186145/224 "2003-07-14T03:28:22Z")
[http://users.rcn.com/tlclcms/census.html](http://users.rcn.com/tlclcms/census.html) This cite has some good points. By the way, \*\*DtC]/b], you do not _know_ for sure about _anything_ that happened 2000 years ago. Shouldn’t you really get that point straight here before you go any further with your analysis? Saying you know for sure about something 2000 years ago is evidence that you are being hasty, no? No? Ok, my bad. _Throws hands up_ I’ll leave it alone then… Also, actual Greek translates Luke as saying that Quirinius was govern_ing_ Syria, not “the governor of” Syria. Big difference here? You tell me… but only after you read the cite. ---
**Author:** ![Thrasymachus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ce73a5/32.png) [@Thrasymachus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thrasymachus)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-errors-in-the-bible-show-me/186145/225 "2003-07-14T03:35:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fuel \* > \*\*I am done here, just so you know. But, no bad blood. I just don’t think it’s worth my time anymore. I respect all of you guys here for your zealousness and education, but this has got to end. \*\* Sorry to hear that. I posted the God-Satan interchangeablility verses a few pages back… Haven’t had much time to post this week. Since you asked about my background on biblical scholarship - I’ve read it a few times, grew up in a religious household, dad was a seminarian. Used to be catholic, now I just study religions because they’re fascinating to me. I’m not very emotionally invested in this stuff, so it’s always a coffee-house atmosphere if your want to debate a bit again. For the rest of the pro-literalists, yes, these arguments have been made and refuted here on a monthly basis - with the inevitable result being the transfer of the illogic of the bible to the believers themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-errors-in-the-bible-show-me/186145/226 "2003-07-14T04:14:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rodrigo \* > \*\*I didn´t say mainstream, I said Orthodox. God forbid I become mainstream anytime soon. > > Couldn’t one just have copied from the other? isn’t that easier. > > 7Q5, a Qumran fragment dated at most AD45 quotes Mk6: 52-53. not a lot of time for a third source to have appeared. > > BTW, any ETA on when Q might be found even in a quote? > I’ve even read from “Q” people that there was an “Early Q”, I guess its’s the MOA Q. > > And also, even if Q exists, it don’t change nothing. My beef with Q is that it is an excuse for denying everything in the NT. > > Thanks for accepting that the LXX was the source for NT quotes. \*\* 1.) Conservative Christian rejections of Q are based on faith, not empirical scholarship. 2.) Luke would have had to copy Matthew under that hypotheis. So why does Luke have a different chronolgical order for the Q material than Matthew? Why does Luke have a different geneology for Jesus than Matthew? Why does Luke fail to mention Herod’s slaughter of the innocents and the flight to Egypt? According to Luke, Jesus returned to Nazereth only eight days after his birth? If Luke was going to copy Matthew, why not copy all of it? And is it just a coincidence that the portions copied by Luke are precisely the portions in which Matthew shows a departure from his own writing style and lapses into a different, yet consistent stylistic voice? 3.) The 7Q5 fragment is _extremely_ fragmentary. It consists of just a few letters, many of them illegible or only partially preseved, The idenification of this fragment as being from Mark is merely hypothetical and is [highly](http://www.breadofangels.com/dssresources/7q5line2/nonu1.html) disputed. Paleograpers do not even agree on which letters are represented. 4.) Mark has nothing to do with the Q gospel anyway. Q is not present in Mark but in Matthew and Luke. Even a complete, extant Gospel of Mark dating from 35 AD would have no bearing whatever on the Q theory. 5.) Q does not have to be found as an extant manuscript to prove its existence. The circumstancial evidence for its existence, or at least the existence of a common written source for Matthew and Luke, is beyond any serious dispute. ---
**Author:** ![Fuel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/df705f/32.png) [@Fuel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuel)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-errors-in-the-bible-show-me/186145/227 "2003-07-14T04:16:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ben \* > \*\*Once again, the Gospel According to Terl: > > “But I _did_ read and meditate on the Bible!” > > “Exactly- but you did not read, meditate on, _and_ accept the Bible. A-HAHAHAHAHA!” \*\* The obvious (his reading and reflecting on) need not be verified or questioned. The obvious is just that… obvious. If there are two ways to interpret a sentence, should not the reader assume the most logical, benefit-of-the-doubt interpretation, in order to avoid making the hampsters (and everyone’s fingers) do overtime? Did I overlook a small ambiguity in my post? Yes. But did someone else overlook it as well, and assume the negative? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-errors-in-the-bible-show-me/186145/228 "2003-07-14T04:17:18Z")
Fuel \*By the way, \*_DtC]/b], you do not know for sure about anything that happened 2000 years ago. Shouldn’t you really get that point straight here before you go any further with your analysis? Saying you know for sure about something 2000 years ago is evidence that you are being hasty, no?_ I agree. Now that you have admitted to the sketchiness of the evidence from so long ago it would be reasonable to assume that all the magic, supernatural, miracle stuff didn’t really happen. Wouldn’t you agree? You know, that stuff about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence? ---
**Author:** ![Fuel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/df705f/32.png) [@Fuel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuel)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-errors-in-the-bible-show-me/186145/229 "2003-07-14T04:47:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by badchad \* > \*\*Fuel > > \*By the way, \*_DtC]/b], you do not know for sure about anything that happened 2000 years ago. Shouldn’t you really get that point straight here before you go any further with your analysis? Saying you know for sure about something 2000 years ago is evidence that you are being hasty, no?_ > > I agree. Now that you have admitted to the sketchiness of the evidence from so long ago it would be reasonable to assume that all the magic, supernatural, miracle stuff didn’t really happen. Wouldn’t you agree? You know, that stuff about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence? \*\* Just a reminder, this thread is about analyzing supposed errors in the Bible. I felt that one of the participants here was not of sound mind to analyze these facts, so I kindly pointed it out to him/her. Did you have something _specific_ to say about the topics addressed here? Cites? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-errors-in-the-bible-show-me/186145/230 "2003-07-14T05:27:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fuel \* > \*\*[http://users.rcn.com/tlclcms/census.html](http://users.rcn.com/tlclcms/census.html) > > This cite has some good points. > Also, actual Greek translates Luke as saying that Quirinius was govern_ing_ Syria, not “the governor of” Syria. Big difference here? You tell me… but only after you read the cite. \*\* No, not really, there isn’t any difference. Luke uses the participial, [symbol]hgemoneuontos[/symbol] (_hegemoneuontos_) rather than the noun, [symbol]hgemon[/symbol] (_hegemon_) but the participle functions as a noun in that sentence. I really fail to see any substantial distinction. Your link has several problems. It is poorly sourced and does not provide links for its sources. For instance, it makes this claim: > [@](#): > > According to E.M. Blaiklock, however, evidence has been found that shows that Quirinius was in Syria for an earlier tour of duty, right around the time that Christ was born. He wasn’t there as governor but in some other leadership capacity.4 Therefore, it is possible that Luke is alluding to this in 2:2. It does not say what Blaiklock’s “evidence” is nor does it link to anything other than the name of a book. The link also makes the following statement: > [@](#): > > 2 What was it then, a census or a taxing? Both: It would have been a census taken in part for the purpose of assessing taxes. But only in part. Augustus was very interested in the number of citizens in his empire; he was especially interested in whether that number was growing. This probably was the primary reason for the census (see below). There are two problems with this assertion. Firstly, Judea was not Roman province in 8 BCE but a protectorate. It was not under direct Roman rule but was a client kingdom. Client kingdoms were not subject to censuses or taxes by the Romans. The census in 6 CE was precipitated by the removal of Archelaus as king and Judea being placed under the governorship of Quirinius. At that point it became a roman province and was subject to taxation. Secondly, the linked piece’s claim that Augustus’ primary motive for a census was to count Roman citizens is a complete non-starter. Roman citizenship did not extend to everyone in the empire but only to those who were actually Roman by birth or by descendancy. The Jewish people of Palestine _were not Roman citizens_. Joseph and Mary were not Roman citizens. Jesus was not a Roman citizen. As a matter of fact, if he \*had been a Roman citizen he could not have been crucified, as Roman law did not allow Roman citizens to be crucified. The link does not provide any evidence that a census was ever conducted in Judea prior to 6 CE but merely tries to extropolate it from Augutustus’ periodic citizen counts. It does not elaborate on its “evidence” that Quirinius played a non-governor leadership role in Syria prior to 6 CE and it fails to take into account that prior to 6 CE Judea would not have fallen under Syrian provincial authority anyway. ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-errors-in-the-bible-show-me/186145/231 "2003-07-14T05:30:59Z")
Fuel _Just a reminder, this thread is about analyzing supposed errors in the Bible. I felt that one of the participants here was not of sound mind to analyze these facts, so I kindly pointed it out to him/her._ Funny I didn’t think you said anything of sound mind until you admitted that one could “not know for sure about anything that happened 2000 years ago.” You aren’t going to backpedal on that now too are you? _Did you have something specific to say about the topics addressed here?_ Sure, all the miracle stories are errant. _Cites?_ All known laws of physics. Though I will understand if you think they should be superceded by 2000 year old stories that you aren’t sure about.😉 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-errors-in-the-bible-show-me/186145/232 "2003-07-14T05:32:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fuel \* > \*\*Just a reminder, this thread is about analyzing supposed errors in the Bible. I felt that one of the participants here was not of sound mind to analyze these facts, so I kindly pointed it out to him/her. > \*\* Why do you claim that I am “not of sound mind?” If you’re going to resort to _ad hominems_ at least provide justification. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-errors-in-the-bible-show-me/186145/233 "2003-07-14T06:01:46Z")
Fuel, before we address your Terl-logic, how about apologizing for your false accusations? Because until you do that, I see no reason to believe that you’re arguing in good faith. BTW, bear in mind that the burden of proof is on _you_, not us. You want us to believe the Bible is inerrant? That’s an extraordinary claim. You have to provide extraordinary proof, and you can start with proof of the census, rather than just making a handwaving “you can’t prove the IPU _doesn’t_ exist” argument. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-errors-in-the-bible-show-me/186145/234 "2003-07-14T06:05:00Z")
BTW, Fuel, how can you go around making accusations that people aren’t of sound mind? You youself have completely failed to address many of the arguments presented here, avoid using profanity, and behave in a mature fashion overall. ---
**Author:** ![Rodrigo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Rodrigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rodrigo)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-errors-in-the-bible-show-me/186145/235 "2003-07-14T14:22:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*1.) Conservative Christian rejections of Q are based on faith, not empirical scholarship. > > 2.) Luke would have had to copy Matthew under that hypotheis. So why does Luke have a different chronolgical order for the Q material than Matthew? Why does Luke have a different geneology for Jesus than Matthew? Why does Luke fail to mention Herod’s slaughter of the innocents and the flight to Egypt? According to Luke, Jesus returned to Nazereth only eight days after his birth? If Luke was going to copy Matthew, why not copy all of it? And is it just a coincidence that the portions copied by Luke are precisely the portions in which Matthew shows a departure from his own writing style and lapses into a different, yet consistent stylistic voice? > > 3.) The 7Q5 fragment is _extremely_ fragmentary. It consists of just a few letters, many of them illegible or only partially preseved, The idenification of this fragment as being from Mark is merely hypothetical and is [highly](http://www.breadofangels.com/dssresources/7q5line2/nonu1.html) disputed. Paleograpers do not even agree on which letters are represented. > > 4.) Mark has nothing to do with the Q gospel anyway. Q is not present in Mark but in Matthew and Luke. Even a complete, extant Gospel of Mark dating from 35 AD would have no bearing whatever on the Q theory. > > 5.) Q does not have to be found as an extant manuscript to prove its existence. The circumstancial evidence for its existence, or at least the existence of a common written source for Matthew and Luke, is beyond any serious dispute. \*\* 1. My faith is your science and your faith is my science. I’ll give the same test you gave me. Can you prove conclusively that Q existed? 2. You’ve had to ask Luke. He himself says he consulted many sources (Tradition holds he even spoke at length with St. Mary) so he could’ve felt he had to arrange it in a different way. 3. “Your” scientists don’t agree because they’ll never agree, it goes against their dogma that the Gospels were written much later. 4. Yes and no. A full AD35 Mark would shake the premise of Q, that is, only sayings were recorded not deed although it’d have less of a bering on “Q” helping Lk and MT. 5. Circumstantial evidence, come on! you wouldn’t allow for a carpenter to travel without making it on the news. I think we have gone way beyond this forum’s idea. We’ve got to stop soon. ---
**Author:** ![Mars\_Horizon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mars_horizon/32/2804_2.png) [@Mars\_Horizon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mars_Horizon)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-errors-in-the-bible-show-me/186145/236 "2003-07-14T15:11:06Z")
Oh great! Another example of the GD Christian threads! Christian: Christianity is historically true. There are historical facts to back up my assertion. Here is one of the facts - \. Skeptic1: That’s not a fact, that’s another assertion. Christian: No, that’s a fact - just ask \. Skeptic2: Appeal to authority - show me the evidence. Christian: You don’t have enough faith to understand the evidence Skeptic1: I have an advanced degree in biblical studies. Here is evidence that does not support your assertion - \. Christian: This really must stop! Skeptics 1 & 2: :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-errors-in-the-bible-show-me/186145/237 "2003-07-14T15:29:57Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. My faith is your science and your faith is my science. > [@](#): > > 1. “Your” scientists don’t agree because they’ll never agree, it goes against their dogma that the Gospels were written much later. > [@](#): > > My beef with Q is that it is an excuse for denying everything in the NT. **A** : This is an artificial claim for a dichotomy that only exists in the minds of people who object to the use of science when studying scripture. The notion that Barth, Brown, Vawter, Conzelman, Dibelius, Feine, Behm, Haenchen, Schürmann, Wilson, and hundreds of others were not men of faith is ludicrous to the point of either _a priori_ bigotry or libel. **B** : Where do you suppose this “dogma” originated? First, it is hardly “dogma,” simply the generally regarded conclusions of much research. Secondly, it is the result of research carried out by men of faith who took the time to learn the science in order to discern the truth. You are simply attacking persons (with neither evidence nor a proposed motive) for the purpose of denying investigations with which you disagree. **C** : This is just silly. The overwhelming number of scholars who truly believe in the New Testament accept Q, (you, yourself dismissed them as “mainstream” although your use of the contrasting word “Orthodox” is confusing, since there are scholars among the Orthodox Patriarchates who have participated in the analysis of Scripture), so if they accept the Gospels and they accept the reality of Q, then on what do you base your fatuous accusation that they accept one to deny the other? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-errors-in-the-bible-show-me/186145/238 "2003-07-14T15:41:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rodrigo \* > \*\*1) My faith is your science and your faith is my science. I’ll give the same test you gave me. Can you prove conclusively that Q existed? > > 1. You’ve had to ask Luke. He himself says he consulted many sources (Tradition holds he even spoke at length with St. Mary) so he could’ve felt he had to arrange it in a different way. > > 2. “Your” scientists don’t agree because they’ll never agree, it goes against their dogma that the Gospels were written much later. > > 3. Yes and no. A full AD35 Mark would shake the premise of Q, that is, only sayings were recorded not deed although it’d have less of a bering on “Q” helping Lk and MT. > > 4. Circumstantial evidence, come on! you wouldn’t allow for a carpenter to travel without making it on the news.\*\* 1.) I’ve already proven it, or at least I’ve shown you why the theory of a common written source for Matthew and Luke is virtually indisputable without resorting to supernatural intervention. 2.) We don’t know who the author of Luke was. We don’t even know that his name was Luke. We don’t know who he talked to or what he read (second century traditions are hardly valid evidence). The fact that Luke was not written until 90 CE, though, would seem to rule out any interviews with Mary, considering that she would have had to be over a hundred years old at the time (in an era where 50 was ancient). 3.) Scientists don’t have dogma. The dating of the gospels has nothing to do with personal agendas. It’s a purely empirical process Any scientist who could prove the veracity of a miracle or the existence of God would win the Nobel prize and receive unprecedented acclaim and respect from other scientists. Individual scientists have nothing to gain by disproving God (a logical impossibility which is not even attempted by scientists) and everything to gain by proving it. Your assertion also ignores the fact that many, many scientists- and more to the point of this thread, many of scholars who subject the Bible to literary and historical criticism- also happen to believe in God. Believe it or not, some of them are even Christians. 4.) Mark has no bearing on the Q theory at all and does not in any way speak to the existence of a sayings gospel. It is logically possible for a narrative gospel to arise contemporaneously with an independently compiled sayings gospel. There are books on the shelves right now about George W Bush, some of which are narrative biographies, and others which are compiled quotations. What is the conflict? Having said all that, there is not a shred of evidence that Mark was composed any time before the late 60’s. > [@](#): > > \*\*I think we have gone way beyond this forum’s idea. We’ve got to stop soon. \*\* The OP challenged us to show logical errors in the Bible. We have provided them. We are now awaiting rebuttals. ---
**Author:** ![Actuary](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Actuary](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Actuary)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-errors-in-the-bible-show-me/186145/239 "2003-07-14T16:09:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*You can believe it if you want, **Rodrigo** , personally I think the fact that Matthew makes claims about supernatural events throughout his gospel submarines his credibility as pure historian. Also it’s obvious from a literary analysis that he is deliberately creating parallels to what he perceives as OT “prophesies.” > > It’s impossible to prove a negative, but frankly, as far as historical scholarship is concerned, it is far more likely than not that Herod’s slaughter and the flight to Egypt are Matthew’s own creations, not history. \*\* Gotcha. Now, your true colors show… You are not objective. You presuppose the Bible writers (like Matthew) to be wrong on historial facts relating to people, places and events, BECAUSE they also report supernatural events, and probably more important, their purpose is to convince you to become a disciple of their leader. You say that the writer is not credible on historical facts in part of the writings SOLELY because he is reporting the supernatural in other parts. Stick to the issue, Diogenes. Don’t change the subject. Stay on task. Whether Quirinius was governing when a census was taken in or around 745-746 A.U.C. should be judged on the merits. Whether there was a slaughter of babies and young children in Bethlehem around the same time or a couple years later should not be roundly dismissed without refuting evidence. Yes, it’s hard to prove an event did not happen. But why become so convinced otherwise without evidence? You say, “as far as historical scholarship is concerned…are Matthew’s own creations.” What does historial scholarship mean? That’s just talk. Whom do you think you are influencing on a Message Board like this with talk like that? Everyone on here seems to demand concrete evidence for assertion and refutations. You say one thing. But your true colors say, "because Matthew believes in the supernatural (and I don’t), then I’m going to declare as untrue anything Matthew says about even non-supernatural events that I cannot separately corroborate with sources who also do not believe in the supernatural. That’s really narrow-minded. In a previous post I spoke of what types of evidence is required to convince someone of something. Your presuppositions about Jesus and the supernatural are getting in your way of assessing even simple factual issues of history. You are more biased in your judgement of historial writers than you would admit. We all have biases (in spite of what the “liberal media and elite” would say). Scientists and historians have biases – even to the point of generating press releases to advance their publicity on conclusions based on weak evidence. Welcome to the real world. Honest investigations require us to set aside our bias, especially when dealing with unrelated topics. Compartmentalize your thinking. If you have such serious trouble believing such irrelevant and obscure references such as Quirinius and Herod’s slaughter, it is clear that you have other issues. Maybe the worst you can say about the census matter is, “It might not be true.” You don’t have enough evidence to say, “It never happened and Luke made it up, 'cause he’s a liar.” The best I can say about it is, “It’s more likely than not that Luke is accurate.” In commenting on historical people, places and events, think in terms of likelihood or probabilities. If you value your opinions highly, don’t give them away so frivilously. Maybe the worst you can say about the slaughter is, “I cannot find any other corroborating evidence.” You don’t have enough evidence to say with any true confidence, “It’s all a creation, not history”. The best I can say is, “At least it’s consistent with Herod’s character and patterns of behavior.” [By the way, some of the gospel writers’ quotes of the O.T. in the context of a particular events are not intended to be support for the fulfillment of a prohesy. For example, Matthew isn’t necessarily claiming that the O.T. writer was prophesying that Messiah would come out of Egypt. He may be merely making an observation about a similarity. Yes, the intent in making the observation is to give Jesus more credibility. But that’s hardly reason to believe that he made up the whole story. You don’t know that.] Without addressing the Bible writers’ accounts of supernatural events or their quotes about Jesus moral instructions, we should try as honestly as possible to weigh the evidence fairly, like any historian SHOULD. I gotta get back to me real job (ya know, the payin’ one). By the way, here are some cites on the census stuff. [http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html](http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html) [http://www.biblehistory.net/Chap2.htm](http://www.biblehistory.net/Chap2.htm) [http://www.interlog.com/~dlim/Luke2v2.html](http://www.interlog.com/~dlim/Luke2v2.html) [http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm](http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm) [http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier2.htm](http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier2.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Mars\_Horizon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mars_horizon/32/2804_2.png) [@Mars\_Horizon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mars_Horizon)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-errors-in-the-bible-show-me/186145/240 "2003-07-14T16:30:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Actuary \*\*\*Gotcha. Now, your true colors show… > > You are not objective. You presuppose the Bible writers (like Matthew) to be wrong on historial facts relating to people, places and events, BECAUSE they also report supernatural events, and probably more important, their purpose is to convince you to become a disciple of their leader.\*\* Actuary - just wondering - do you dismiss the supernatural events reported by the writers of other religious texts? Or do you accept that an archangel spoke to Mohammed, that two angels spoke with Joseph Smith, or that the winged god Xuactal consumed 1000 young virgins with his fiery breath one summer morning in 754 A.D. ? It’s been said before, “when you understand why you reject all the other religion’s claims, you will understand why I reject yours”. We are both “atheists” - you just believe in one (or three!) more Gods than I do. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-errors-in-the-bible-show-me/186145.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-errors-in-the-bible-show-me/186145.md?page=13)