The Bible is Not Without Error

You have proved yourself to be a worthy opponent. With that said, let's jump right in to my arguments. At what time was Jesus crucified? My opponent is still arguing for the Jewish-Roman time difference but still fails to respond to the fact that there is simply 0 evidence from the scripture that indicates that they are using two different methods of counting. In addition, I have responded WITH EVIDENCE to show that the Romans to counted time starting at dawn. Here is what the Atheist Bible Companion has to say. " “And it was the third hour when they crucified him. ” This flatly contradicts John’s account where Jesus was still with Pilate at the sixth hour (John 19:14). The theologians try to wiggle out of this one by claiming that John’s gospel refers to “Roman time” which supposedly began counting the hours at midnight, while the traditional Jewish manner of reckoning time started from dawn. But this rebuttal does not hold water, because the Romans, too, counted the hours from dawn! For more on the Roman manner of reckoning time, see the sources listed in the comment to Matthew 27:45. "See also: . http://www.dl.ket.org... | Conclusion |My opponent's arguments beg questions. Those questions are: Where is the evidence they are using different time methods? Why would they use different time methods? First Appearance of JesusI have provided internal evidence that hints to the 1st appearance of Jesus was that. However, you completely ignore it. Again, if you are interested, I will provide what the Atheist Bible Companion has to say. "Jesus’s first appearance to the disciples after the crucifixion was only to ten of them, Thomas being absent. But Matthew 28:16 states quite plainly that the first appearance was to the eleven disciples who remained after Judas’s defection. Luke 24:33 agrees that the first appearance was to the eleven, although Luke (Jerusalem) and Matthew (Galilee) disagree over where the meeting occurred. "| Conclusion |I have provided evidence that hints to the fact that BOTH Matthew and Luke are talking about the same events AND the fact that the two cities are very far apart. FloodAllow me to provide the evidence that based on the geneaologies of the Bible, the flood myth is nothing more than a myth. If we count up the geneaologies, we discover the fact that the flood occured roughly around 2500 BCE. We also know that the temple was built around 1000 BCE. What does that prove? Well, we have found evidence of culters that existed long before 2500 BCE and long after BCE. (I say "long before" and "long after" to disqualify the argument that we just simply do not know and the 2500 year may be off by a few years. ) The great pyramids were built around 2650 BCE. Note that the BCE time is backwards so 2650 occured BEFORE 2500. . http://www.authenticwonders.com... Therefore, there is a problem. More than 50 years before the flood happened. There is also evidence the flood was based on earlier myths . http://ancienthistory.about.com...;Questions you need to answer. * If you were to take two of each kind, what would you do with colonial animals like ants and termites? * Why doesn't mitochondrial DNA show that our population dwindled down to a few people several thousand years ago? * How do you explain Plate Tectonics (The current creationist model would boil the ocean off)? "There is geological evidence that points to a global flood. Such a flood would explain the partial skeletons of modern animals found in deep fissures all over the world, such as in high hills. None of these skeletons have been found complete so they did not fall into or were pushed in by streams. Calcite cemented their bones together, which gives credence to being deposited while under water. "This argument actually helps my case. If they were on top of hills, they should have been eroded away and brought down to valleys--NOT on top of the hills. In addition, a big problem lies in misunderstanding of how mountains form. Mountains form slowly over time. For example, the Himalayan mountains were formed when India slamed into the continent of Asia. They as still growing today, which presents a major problem for creationists. . http://library.thinkquest.org...Scientific problemsThe oldest living tree has been dated to over 4,000 years. Now, the creationist might say it began growing after the flood. But wait a minute, we have dead fossilized trees that lived before this one(nearly 9,000 years ago), as well as during its lifespan. How do we know this? The tree ring patterns (controlled largely by the weather, as to how far apart they are, etc. ) match up. This poses a MAJOR problem to the flood. If the older fossilized trees had been alive, they managed to survive the flood. That's not possible. They would have drowned, or crushed by the weight of the water. To break it down:4,000 year old tree with specific growth ring patterns. Fossilized trees with same ring patterns plus 5,000 years before 4,000 year old tree. Keep comparing ring data. .. .IF there was a world wide flood, the trees would be killed off and there would be no overlap in ring growth at some point. This is not what we see. .. So the trees continued to grow through a continuous period of time. Carbon 14 dating is also in agreement with the ages. From . http://aigbusted.blogspot.com... | Conclusion |I have shown why my opponent's arguments fail. I have shown historical and scientific reasons why a global flood is impossible. EstherAllow me to shed light on the subject. In efforts to find out if a document is historicaly reliable, historians ask the following questions: When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)? Where was it produced (localization)? By whom was it produced (authorship)? From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)? In what original form was it produced (integrity)? What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)? Let's plug this back into Esther. When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)? 4th-3rd century BCE [1] Where was it produced (localization)? Persia [2] By whom was it produced (authorship)? also unknown, most likely Mordecai or Nehimiah From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)? This to is unknown. Again, we have 0 evidence for this story outside of the scriptures. Some of it is probably oral tradition In what original form was it produced (integrity)? Written in Hebrew most likely. What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)? The credibility is uncertain. The credibility of a texts goes up when there are more documents that colaborate with the same document. There is none. Back to you! Sources:1. . http://www.livius.org...2. . http://bible.org...