Mary's Ten Year Pregnancy

[T0 Th3 M4X]

As far as the tense, that line was written in Greek with the word "Karpos" (fruit) and the tense isn't the same. In fact, the Greek language uses more tenses than English.  

Translation errors would still be errors AND THERE ARE NO ERRORS!!!!!!!!! 

[Out of character]
I'm analyzing the Bible from the perspective of "the inerrant Word of God" to criticize believers. My criticism doesn't apply to those who argue for it as an imperfect historical text.

I agree. There are translation errors in many texts.  Sometimes it's unintentional and sometimes it's done out of ignorance.  For many years, that was the boast of the Qur'an (Koran). They felt their holy book was inerrant due to how they maintained their text, but as the world broadened and even things like the Internet came into existence, audiences expanded. The Bible has been the same way. People re-translate something and think they can do it better. Take for example the TNIV.  Someone wanted to make the Bible more "friendly" to teenagers so they hacked and edited so it would appeal to the demographic.  Of course that led to problems because "changes" were made and people got upset and uncomfortable. I think this is fair even to say with atheism. There are people who say they are atheist, but now you have to define your atheism so people know what you mean (hard, soft, etc..).  It's not always a bad thing and it can even be beneficial for understanding. But the thing is, at least IMO, it's better to focus on what we know instead of what we're unsure of and then try to fill in the gaps as we learn more.  People will almost always find what they want to find. If you want to find fault in something, there are probably a million ways to find fault in anything, but if you try to find truth in something, you'll learn even from problems and mistakes.

Last thing.  I don't believe that in context it's saying Mary was pregnant 10 years, but choosing to believe that's what it meant is neither here nor there beyond personal translation.  If there can be a virgin birth, there can be a elongated pregnancy, but that doesn't mean there was.  We're guessing. I think that's good because it makes us think and can sharpen our minds.

[Minimalist]

Xtians will lie like rugs to deny that there was a 10 year gap.

But the gap between Herod the Great and Quirinius cannot be explained away.

https://infidels.org/library/modern/rich...inius.html

The Date of the Nativity in Luke

Richard Carrier

Conclusion

There is no way to rescue the Gospels of Matthew and Luke from contradicting each other on this one point of historical fact. The contradiction is plain and irrefutable, and stands as proof of the fallibility of the Bible, as well as the falsehood of at least one of the two New Testament accounts of the birth of Jesus.

[YahwehIsTheWay]

People will almost always find what they want to find. If you want to find fault in something, there are probably a million ways to find fault in anything, but if you try to find truth in something, you'll learn even from problems and mistakes. 

The Bible either IS the infallible Word of God or it ISN'T. There is no "sort of Word of God" option.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

People will almost always find what they want to find. If you want to find fault in something, there are probably a million ways to find fault in anything, but if you try to find truth in something, you'll learn even from problems and mistakes. 

The Bible either IS the infallible Word of God or it ISN'T. There is no "sort of Word of God" option.

That's such a broad statement.  Your OP statement was that Mary supposedly had a 10 year pregnancy. I understand if you want to believe that or even assert that the intended context was such, but I'm not seeing it.  Your argument seems to rely on the use of "is" to determine tense, but it was translated from Greek.  A translation of anything can easily be fallible, because it's not authentic.  It's simply someone's take on the context. They may have good intentions, but people make mistakes. That's why they make erasers for pencils and a delete key on your keyboard.  The English language is mostly a mesh of other languages and many times it's overly simplistic, which actually makes it difficult for some people to learn.  We say "love", Greeks say that same word 8 different ways, with four being used commonly (Agape, Storge, Philia, Eros).  We say "left" or "right", but many languages use directions (N,S,E,W) to share what shoe they're referring to.  My point here is your relying on a fallible interpretation to show that something else is fallible.

Please keep in mind that I'm not saying you're wrong or that your intent isn't good, but that I can't come to the same conclusion based on what is known. 

[Minimalist]

My point here is your relying on a fallible interpretation to show that something else is fallible.

You'd think a "god" could do better, no?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Nixed.

Boru

[tackattack]

---

P. Sulpicius Quirinius was named Imperial Legate for the Province of Syria in 6 AD.  He was never a "king."

I don't know what you are referring to in "Venice" which did not even exist in the first century but Josephus tells the story of how the Sanhedrin petitioned Augustus to become a Roman prefecture and pension off Archelaus who was apparently something of a dick.  Quirinius, with an equestrian by the name of Coponius as Prefect, was assigned to evaluate the wealth of the newly-formed prefecture.  There was never any worldwide census.  Whatever clown wrote "luke" pulled that out of his ass.

---

OK, my point wasn't about a world wide census, it was a fallacy in the logic.

Lk 2:1
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. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem.
Antiquities 18.1.1 1
Quirinius, a Roman senator who had passed through all the other magistracies until he became consul, and one who in other respects was very distinguished, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, having been sent by Caesar to be governor of that nation and to make an assessment of their property. Coponius, a man of the equestrian order, was sent with him to have supreme authority over the Jews. Quirinius came himself to Judea, which had now been added to the province of Syria, to make an assessment of their property and to dispose of Archelaus's estate.

Yes, Quirinius became governor in 6AD and was in Syria. Property assessments were also going on at that time.

Here's what we could have:
A. Luke is right and Josephus was wrong that Jesus was born when Quirinius became governor
B. Josephus was right and Luke was mistaken about world events at the time of Christ's birth
C. Josephus was right in his assessment of Quirinius' assent to governor but did not note every census and Luke was not wrong in a previous census
D. Josephus was right in his assessment of Quirinius' assent to governor but did not note every census and Luke was wrong in a previous census
E. Luke was right in his assessment of historical events but did not note every position Quirinius held and Josephus was not wrong on the 6AD census
F. Luke was right in his assessment of historical events but did not note every position Quirinius held and Josephus was wrong on the 6AD census
....insert many more: both are wrong, we live in a matrix, time is not real, documents are fake, etc.

and G. All of the above doesn't matter for shit because if the point is about relevance and accuracy, it misses the giant elephant in the room. Anno Domini became the prevalent system until Common era came about to placate the Jews and non believers. An entire numbering of History (minus the zero even though the concept of 0 existed) based on a tenuous birth date of one person that existed prior to any of the current minds of the time.

Here's a thought experiment: Today we celebrate Bradjalicious' birthday (Happy Bday, btw) that person is so awesome (I don't know from experience but for this purpose we'll assume) we'll call today A.B. (anno Bradjalicious). 2000 years from now is it important that he lied on his forum B-day field or that he was relevant and awesome enough to be a part of ordering history?

[YahwehIsTheWay]

All of the above doesn't matter for shit because if the point is about relevance and accuracy, it misses the giant elephant in the room. Anno Domini became the prevalent system until Common era came about to placate the Jews and non believers. An entire numbering of History (minus the zero even though the concept of 0 existed) based on a tenuous birth date of one person that existed prior to any of the current minds of the time.

Here's a thought experiment: Today we celebrate Bradjalicious' birthday (Happy Bday, btw) that person is so awesome (I don't know from experience but for this purpose we'll assume) we'll call today A.B. (anno Bradjalicious). 2000 years from now is it important that he lied on his forum B-day field or that he was relevant and awesome enough to be a part of ordering history?

The calendar year was brought about by a Cathy-lick monk in the 6th century who got his numbers wrong. Clearly Jesus was born before 4 BCE because Harod's slaughter of the innocents places the events before Harod died. Also, Jesus was born after 6 CE because Judea wasn't a Roman province until that time and any Roman census wouldn't have applied. I maintain it was a miracle and that's how it happened.

[Minimalist]

Tacky,

Josephus doesn't say anything about "jesus" being born.  Even the people who forged the TF never bothered with that.

"Luke" was clearly written long after the events of first century Judaea had been forgotten.  The Roman prefecture over Judaea lasted for a short period of 35 years, from 6 to 41 when Caligula appointed his boyhood friend, Herod Agrippa, to be king.  Caligula and Claudius followed a policy of expanding Herod Agrippa's kingdom until it equaled Herod the Great's at his death in 4 BC.  

Thus whatever 3d rate "historian" wrote Luke invented all sorts of plot devices to get his boy born in Nazareth.  He had clearly forgotten the early first century partitioning of Herod's kingdom when he has "Joseph" travel from "Nazareth" ( which in all likelihood did not even exist at the time ) in Galilee ( ruled by Herod Antipas ) to Bethlehem in Judaea (under the auspices of Coponius, the newly installed Prefect.)  I think this makes "Luke" a mid 2d century writing not to mention that most of it first appears as Marcion's Gospel of the Lord.  But of course Marcion was a heretic so all of that has to be dismissed, right.

Luke, like "Matthew" is a fanfic.  An expansion by later authors of the basic story written by "Mark" and which was designed to fill in various plot holes that Mark did not bother with.  It is a fantasy of faith and any history in it is purely accidental and largely wrong.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

My point here is your relying on a fallible interpretation to show that something else is fallible.

You'd think a "god" could do better, no?

What would you consider better and why would it be an improvement?  What you're asking is subjective.  That is why in the sciences we attempt to define things and measure them.  If I say "my cake is better than your cake", it's probably true to you but maybe not to me, but it doesn't make you wrong, but rather opinionated about the cake you can bake.  If I was to tell you that your cake wasn't good enough, you would probably want an explanation as to the issue I had with the cake or how I think you could make it better.  It doesn't mean your cake was garbage or that I didn't think it was edible.  You could even bake a new cake to my standards, and the next person could easily come along and say your cake sucks.  Maybe I told you to add sugar, you listened, and they said it was too sweet for them.

Subjective views have merit, but you gotta take them in stride.  I try not to go out of my way to tell anybody that their belief isn't good enough, because it's probably more useful to identify the things we can agree on.