The Bible is right! Part 2

I hope to provide much more detail in this one. I would also like to start by saying I enjoy these debates because it teaches anyone who reads it. And provides multiple points of view. This is very helpful in life and much of our technology has flurished because of someone's point of view. Questioning the King James Bible is a real way of finding the most valuable truths within it. I thank my opponent again for this chance. I will get to work! 1. WHAT YEAR WAS JESUS BORN? 5-4BC Contradictions in Matthew and Mark of Jesus's birth. Is this a contradiction though? I got ONE issue with this contradiction: 1. Technically it is still a historical error and before this is resolved the correct dates for history must be 100% verified. It is widely known to be errors in dating calenders. We do not even know if we are in the year 2012, it is assumed, by expert calculations, that we are in 2012 but it is not 100% assurd we are. Ok lets take a breif summary and ask some questions. Cyrenius was a Roman official in the time of Augustus of Rome and Herod of Judea. He was in charge of Roman military matters in Syria, which placed him over the legions in Judea as well, on 2 different occasions: 6-4 BCE and 6-9 CE. The consensus among Christians is that he was born in 4 BCE, during Cyrenius' first term. And all Christian scholars, even Fundamentalists, agree that Cyrenius was governor twice. This we know as fact. Luke's story mentions that the taxation was under Augustus Caesar, and he says nothing of Herod! And Augustus was known Ruler throughout the land of Judea, Rome, and Greece. KJV-R (Webster) Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. I will mention that Matthew and Mark have differnent styles and are for different meanings. Mark was in more of a Greek/Roman style and was under the view as the land was ruled under Augustus not Herod. Even though Judea was a vessel state it was always under the rule of Augustus and the Romans. This only clarifies that fact in Luke. There was a Jesus, and he was born around 4 BCE, and yes, Cyrenius was governor at that time. Also it should be noted that Cyrenius was under Augustus's leadership(to rule a land he must have been loved) and even though Herod was King, he ultimately was under neath Cyrenius and finally Augustus. My opponent needs to provide why it was a contradiction for Luke to view Augustus as ruler rather than Herod the Great? And why Cyrenius would not be governor during Jesus's birth in 4BC? And why a world-wide decree could not have come out during 4BC? Also considering a world-wide consenus, wouldn't that vast project take along time(also including limited traveling? )Maybe 10-12 years like in 6ad. 6AD was the end of the vast project of going and counting every single person, animal, land, and tax, it would take along time too complete would it not? . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. THE INTERLINERSHIP OF THE NATIVITY In this contradiction my opponent provides no clear cut contradiction or verses. I maybe wrong. I think my opponent should define his reasoning here. I am taking it my opponent is suspecting that Jesus went to Egypt and grew strong in knowledge and went back to Nazareth in 40 days. This seems impossible. I think my opponent should provide why these events he is refering have to be within 40 days. Otherwise this is no contradiction and will be given to Pro! Some scholars view the discussion of historicity as secondary, given that gospels were primarily written as theological documents rather than chronological timelines. 3. THE DEATH OF JUDAS This is the easiest one of my opponents three contradicitons. This is simple lets pull up the scripture: Matt 27:5 states that Judas "threw the pieces of silver. .. .and he went away and hanged himself. " Acts 1:18 states, "and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. " It's rather easy to reconcile these: First, Judas tried to kill himself by hanging himself. And this is not always a successful way. Keep in mind that it is not uncommon for people who commit suicide to have tried it before. In this situation, the rope/branch could have broke before or after death, and Judas plummeted to the ground and landed on some jagged rocks. Certainly, these explanations are plausible, thus a contradiction has not been established. First of all, notice that the text does not say that Judas died as a result of hanging. All it says is that he "went and hanged himself. " Luke however, in Acts, tells us that "and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out. " This is a pretty clear indication that at least after Judas' fall, he was dead. Matthew doesn't necessarily explain how Judas died; he does say Judas "hanged himself", but he didn't specifically say Judas died in the hanging incident. However, Acts seems to show us his graphic demise. Therefore, there is no contradiction between Matthew and Acts re: Judas' death. But Matthew does not state death as being a result. The Greek word is APAGCHO. Matthew 27:5 is it's only occurrence in the New Testament. In the LXX (the Greek translation of the OT used at the time of Jesus), it's only used in 2 Samuel 17:23 : "Now when Ahithophel saw that his advice was not followed, he saddled a donkey, and arose and went home to his house, to his city. Then he put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died; and he was buried in his father's tomb. " Notice that not only is it stated that Ahithophel "hanged himself," but it explicitly adds, "and died". Here we have no doubt of the result. In Matthew, we are not explicitly told Judas died. The potter's field was purchased by Judas [Acts 1:18] The potter's field was purchased by the Chief Priests [Matt 27:6,7] Perhaps here, the following maxim holds -- "He who does a thing by another, does it himself. " That is, yes it was the chief priests who actually bought the field, but Judas had furnished the occasion for its purchase. Thus, the verse in Acts could be employing a figure of speech where we attribute to the man himself any act which he has directly or indirectly procured to be done. After all, we attribute the "Clinton health care plan" to Bill Clinton, when in reality, it is a plan devised by others associated with Bill Clinton. . http://www.bringyou.to... Contradiction resolved. Goes to Pro! I thank my opponent and send back his way> Sources: KJV Bible-Revised ^ Spong, John Shelby. Jesus for the non-religious. HarperCollins. 2007. ISBN 0-06-076207-1 ^ Brown, R. E. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. Doubleday, NY. 1993. Page 549 ^ Bromiley, Geoffrey W, ed. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. William B. Eerdmans Publishing. 1995. ISBN 0-8028-3785-9. Page 655 ^ Ehrman, Bart D. . Jesus, Interrupted. HarperCollins. 2009. ISBN 0-06-117393-2