• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is faith a reliable means of ascertaining the truth?

gnostic

The Lost One
As I stated in my reply, I saw that there was some disagreement on the year of Herod's death.

One of them being around 4BC-1BC.

Yes, I am well aware of the theory that Herod may have died at 1 BCE, instead of 4 BCE, but that’s old news, presented by W. E. Filmer in JTS article, 1966. Filmer went on and on and on, about how Herod died shortly after the lunar eclipse, and how it is the one in 1 BCE, but in that year, there were 3 eclipses. But he is ignoring that was a lunar eclipse on 4 BCE.

But this article has since been refuted by 2 years later by T. D. Barnes, who wrote another article in the very same journal (JTS, 19, 204).

Sources:
W. E. Filmer, The Journals Of Theological Studies, volume XVII, issue 2, “The Chronology of the Reign of Herod the Great”, 1966, 283 ff.

T. D. Barnes, The Journals Of Theological Studies, volume XIX, “Date Of Herod’s Death”, 1968, 204 ff.​

Fourth- I found multiple locations that seem to show Quirinius was governor during that time period also.
I also saw where they think Quirinius was Governor at 2 different times. One of them being around 4BC-1BC.

Again, I have come across this argument too, and it is another old news, which have been refuted on the basis that it relied on too much speculations on a literary evidences.

This evidence is found in the town of Tibur (later called Tivoli), Latium, Italy, some inscriptions written in marble, except that there are no name as to who this mystery governor of Syria was.

But Christians using this evidences as evidence for Quirinius being governor twice in Syria, are baseless assumptions since there are no name attach to this inscription.

A group of people claimed this must be Quirinius, except Quirinius was already serving in Galatia at that time.

Second, just because there were no governor in 4 to 1 BCE, doesn’t mean that it was Quirinius. Beside that I have said in my earlier reply that Quirinius was governor serving in Galatia, but you seemed to be ignoring this.

Quirinius first governorship was as a propraetor at Crete and Cyrenaica (now Libya) where he won great victory over the Garamantes in 15 BCE, and earned the name or title - Cyrenaicus.

And that victory won him a consulship in 12 BCE, and earned him a governorship (as a legatus) in 12 BCE at Galatia and Pamphylia, that didn’t end till 1 CE.

And while he governor of Galatia, there were insurrections among the Homanades in the mountains of Galatia and Cilicia, which lasted 3 years, from 5 BCE to 3 BCE.

And when this governorship ended 1 CE, Augustus appointed Quirinius as mentor (rector) to his grandson, Gaius Caesar, who became the commander of the eastern army at Armenia. At that time, Rome was facing the army of Parthian empire.

There were no census in 1 BCE, because Herod have been Dead, and Archelaus was the current ruler of Judaea, and the client king towards Rome.

It doesn't matter when Herod died, because there were no census being carried out while he was still alive, because the census only took place when Archelaus lost Judaea in 6 CE, and Augustus turned Judaea into Roman province.

Quirinius life in 4 BCE to 1 BCE is accounted for, and he wasn’t in Syria then.

Both the 1966 article about Herod dying in 1 BCE, and the interpretation of Tibur inscriptions of Quirinius serving as governor of Syria, have been debunked decades ago.
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
TrueBeliever37.

Have you ever thought of the possibility that the author to the gospel of Luke could be wrong?

That he (be him Luke or someone else) could make mistakes with datings to the death of Herod, and to when the governorship and census of Quirinius.

The gospels, all of them, were written by people - humans. None of them were written by god, and it was nearly 4 generations ago. They (authors) are not infallible.

Are they infallible? Do you think they cannot make mistakes?
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
The difference is the Bible has proven to be true via prophecy that has been fulfilled. But the prophecy is so accurate that unbelievers have to resort to saying it had to have been written after the fact.
Find us proof of texts written before the event and we'll go from there.

I just don't think hearing and eyesight would develop on it's own. A one celled organism wouldn't have hearing and eyesight. So why would it just develop on it's own? It just doesn't make sense.
Light and sound detection don't require eyes or ears at first. Organelles or specialized cells will suffice to at least let you know there is the absence or presence of sound. Our attempts to give sight to the blind hasn't given them "normal" sight yet, but being able to differentiate objects/obstacles is a much better outcome than nothing at all.

Why would our food develop and just happen to have good taste? and have such a variety of good tastes?
How is taste objective?

How would a one celled organism evolve into a tree? Why would a tree produce fruit that is good to the taste? Once again - you need a seed to get a tree, but you need the tree to get the seed. So somehow one or the other had to be first.
You can believe a small seed can become a tree but not something on a larger time scale than that?

And, again, you only need a tree species similar to the result to occur, not the same species. Genetic screwups during the reproduction process will get you the new species.

What logical reason would cause a fish to evolve into a land animal?
45a9225e07a7a1b184d16224aaa88c1a.jpg
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I think I answered it in post#307 unless that isn't the question you mean. See what kind of EVIDENCE I am provided with - I am told to go seek the answers. I never said I do understand all the theory of evolution. That's why I am asking you - someone that is implying they do understand it. If man didn't evolve from monkeys, where did he come from according to evolution? And what is the closest link to the past? Don't just dismiss my questions. Tell me about some of that evidence so many say is there.

I'd really appreciate if you would answer my question before going off into a big long list of questions that can be easily answered by taking some time with Google. There are also a number of threads on evolution on this very forum.

That question I asked you was:
Why do you consider scripture the default position, even when it comes in conflict with empirical evidence?

I asked that in response to your post in which you said:
“Atheists tend to believe in evolution. I was asking the question, hoping to show that as I see it, it would be necessary to have had a creation by God. I personally don't think the ToE really makes sense. To me it takes faith to believe in the ToE also. I know many claim it is based on science, but I think it is false science when it conflicts with scripture.”


The thread topic is about whether or not faith is a reliable method of ascertaining the truth.

Your response to all this was that you trust God's word? Can you elaborate on that?


I think most of your questions are answered here:
An Index to Creationist Claims
 
Top