The Romans were pretty efficient when they wanted shit done, and Israel/Palestine is a tiny area in the scope of the early empire, similar in size to Wales in the UK. Also the population estimates for the Israel 2K years ago tend to be very small.

And they gave them the aqueduct, sanitation, roads, medicine, education, health and the wine, Public baths....and they certainly knew how to keep the order, let's face it, they're the only ones that could in a place like this.

(December 21, 2017 at 10:29 am)JackRussell Wrote: The Romans were pretty efficient when they wanted shit done, and Israel/Palestine is a tiny area in the scope of the early empire, similar in size to Wales in the UK. Also the population estimates for the Israel 2K years ago tend to be very small.

And they gave them the aqueduct, sanitation, roads, medicine, education, health and the wine, Public baths....and they certainly knew how to keep the order, let's face it, they're the only ones that could in a place like this.

Yes, but aside from the aqueduct, sanitation, roads, medicine, education, health, wine, and public baths, what have the Romans ever done for us? Brought peace?

(December 21, 2017 at 10:04 am)Jehanne Wrote: Can you point to some scholars who defend Biblical inerrancy?

Sure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_St..._Inerrancy

You can click on the signers in blue and check their credentials. The others would take a little more research.

(December 21, 2017 at 10:49 am)alpha male Wrote:

(December 21, 2017 at 10:04 am)Jehanne Wrote: Can you point to some scholars who defend Biblical inerrancy?

Sure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_St..._Inerrancy

You can click on the signers in blue and check their credentials. The others would take a little more research.

And they can do it while carrying and simultaneously not carrying someone else's burdens !!!

So is that it?

Out of the whole OP's worth of contradictions and everyone that I answered plus the one on the census no one has anything else?

(December 21, 2017 at 10:51 am)vorlon13 Wrote: And they can do it while carrying and simultaneously not carrying someone else's burdens !!!

After your copout on Thu/Fri and the other bits of your copypasta that we've refuted and you've been silent on, do you really think you're being taken seriously at this point?

So, you're saying that Jesus was born in 6 CE?

(December 21, 2017 at 9:19 am)alpha male Wrote: More like the old false dichotomy.

Agreed.

Quote:I choose logic when it's appropriate to do so. Logic is a tool, not a way of life. If you looked at yourself honestly you'd find you live much less logically than you suppose. We're more emotional than rational beings.

Yes, I'm an emotional being. Emotions guide my actions when I'm hanging out with friends and family, writing poetry, or expressing myself to a love interest. But when trying to figure out anything about the nature of the universe/reality, it falls way short. Logic is the right tool for that job.

Quote:Can you forget the bloody history of communism, a philosophy that was arrived at through logic?

No, I cannot forget the bloody history of communism, a philosophy that was arrived at through logic.

Quote:Yes, and I'm certain there's more to it that that. One extreme example is 20 years of sobriety following 15 years of daily alcohol and drugs.

Unless you can prove that an atheist can't quit using for 20 years, this statement is meaningless. A drunk who found a rabbit's foot the day he quit drinking might credit the lucky charm for getting him to 20 years of sobriety. That's how confirmation bias works.

Quote:I can guarantee that such a survey hasn't been performed, as I know educated theologians who have never been surveyed on it.

Non sequitur.

Quote:It would be impossible to identify and survey all such people. When someone says Scholars agree that... on a Biblical issue it's generally bullshit. They have no idea what the level of agreement is. They're usually referring to a general sense that they get from articles they've seen in journals. Journals aren't necessarily representative of the general population. They're likely to tend to the provocative in what they publish. Maybe most scholars agree with the conventional wisdom, but such pieces aren't going to sell magazines.

You may be right here. I am assuming you follow the work of theologians more than I do. But I don't see why theology wouldn't be any different than philosophy, physics, science, psychology, or any other academic discipline where consensuses develop. I'm not talking about unanimous agreement (and I think we're on the same page here), but things are generally agreed upon in many areas. What about the dating of the Gospels? Several independent sources that I have researched myself have corroborated one another. There might not be unanimous agreement as to the dates, but there is continuity and a general consensus. But, again, theology ain't my wheelhouse.

Quote:Even if you did conduct a survey of all scholars and found a majority position, that wouldn't make the position true.

Agreed.

(December 21, 2017 at 12:21 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: Yes, I'm an emotional being. Emotions guide my actions when I'm hanging out with friends and family, writing poetry, or expressing myself to a love interest. But when trying to figure out anything about the nature of the universe/reality, it falls way short. Logic is the right tool for that job.

You're painting with an overly broad brush. Logic alone can help us figure out the nature of reality in part. Logic leads me to belief in a creator god of some sort. Logic fails in other instances. I could logically conclude that disabled people are a drain on society and should be eliminated. In that case I defer to emotion and faith, which tells me otherwise. Regarding the physical, we tend to rely on observation and science rather than logic. Overall, logic is very limited regarding the nature of the universe/reality.

Quote:Unless you can prove that an atheist can't quit using for 20 years, this statement is meaningless. A drunk who found a rabbit's foot the day he quit drinking might credit the lucky charm for getting him to 20 years of sobriety. That's how confirmation bias works.

Christianity doesn't need to have the only solution to a problem in order to have a solution to the problem. Plenty of atheists have sobered up through 12-step programs by using the group or something else as their higher power. To say that they, or someone who sobered up through religion or some philosophy, are merely engaging in confirmation bias is ridiculous. A rabbit's foot isn't analogous to conscious lifestyle choices aimed at producing a desired effect.

Quote:You may be right here. I am assuming you follow the work of theologians more than I do. But I don't see why theology wouldn't be any different than philosophy, physics, science, psychology, or any other academic discipline where consensuses develop. I'm not talking about unanimous agreement (and I think we're on the same page here), but things are generally agreed upon in many areas. What about the dating of the Gospels? Several independent sources that I have researched myself have corroborated one another. There might not be unanimous agreement as to the dates, but there is continuity and a general consensus. But, again, theology ain't my wheelhouse.

Again, my main points with regard to this are:

1. We don't know the percentages of Biblical scholars' positions on any issue. People pretending we do are, well, pretending.

2. Even if we have a majority, that doesn't indicate truth.

You don't seem to contest those, so I'm not sure where you're going with the above.

A difference between Biblical scholarship and the other disciplines you mention is that those disciplines can publish on new discoveries. Aside from Biblical archaeology, Biblical scholars don't have new material to publish on. They have pretty much the same Bible they've always had. So, to publish articles and books, they need to invent new ways of looking at it. A book or article concluding that the conventional wisdom of the past 2,000 years is correct is less likely to be published than one challenging the conventional wisdom. So, people reading the latest journals and books (who are the type of people editing wiki pages) can end up seeing a false consensus.

(December 21, 2017 at 11:30 am)Jehanne Wrote: So, you're saying that Jesus was born in 6 CE?

come on...

Everyone knows that the priest who calculated the birth of Christ was a few years off. Not a bible thing, just an over zealous priest thing.

---

Like I said in the beginning. The bible never claims to be inerrant, even so I never found a mistake. That said what the bible does say is that by these words are we held accountable. So no matter if the bible is in error or not it is to this standard we will be judged. if it is wy off. it is on god to either forgive or change it as he did with the dead sea scroll years back.