The Bible is Not Without Error

Thank you for your careful response. But first, I would like to point out that much of what is being argued about here is which interpretation is right; where does the evidence lie. This being the case, even if my case is not the strongest (which I believe it is), being that I do offer a possibility, one cannot honestly call it a contradiction. Crucifixion Time The Jews numbered their hours differently than the Romans. Wikipedia explains that "the Jewish day is of no fixed length… it runs from sunset to the next sunset."[1] When counting the hours of a day, Jews split it up into two periods of 12, one being during the dark hours and one being during the daylight hours. Each of these parts was known as horae. [2] As I said, it can be seen in the synoptic gospels that they all use the same time system. See Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44. It is universally agreed that these three books the hours were numbered according to the Jewish time scale, thus from sunrise. The third hour from sunrise (approximately 6:00 A.M.) was 9:00 A.M. The Roman day began at midnight, proceeding for 24 hours.[3] This is well known, but is also shown in the writings of Pliny the Elder: "The day itself has been differently observed in different countries… by the Roman priests and those who have defined the civil day, as the Egyptians also and Hipparchus, from midnight to midnight." [4] Macrobius also writes, "The day, which the Romans have declared to begin at the sixth hour of the night." [5] (Again, I should point out that the ancients counted 12 segments of darkness and 12 of daylight.) John was likely using the Roman civil timing system because as J.B. McClellan writes, "St. John wrote his Gospel in Ephesus, the capital of the Roman province of Asia, and therefore in regard to the civil day he would be likely to employ the Roman reckoning."[6] We see this use in other places of his gospel, such as in John 1:39, 4:6, 12:1, and 20:19. The 6th hour according to this system would then be 6:00 A.M., when Jesus was still at the trial. Given a proper understanding of the context, there is no contradiction. First Appearance of Jesus Again, my argument will continue as before. Neither passage says it was the FIRST appearance. Therefore, there is no contradiction. You are making an argument from silence. John Haley describes it as "Matthew does not deny, but simply passes over, earlier appearances of our Lord, and dwells upon that in Galilee as being one of great importance. Then, probably, it was that the risen Saviour was 'seen of above five hundred brethren at once.' This manifestation seems to have been our Lord's last great act in Galilee, his final interview with his disciples in that region." [7] And since he walked around for 40 days after his resurrection, there is plenty of time to make the journey. While you may not like the explanation, nor agree, since it is a possibility, you cannot claim a contradiction. The Flood You made two arguments against my many proofs concerning a global flood. The first is given the many flood stories, why do they contradict each other. Of course this is not in fact an argument against a possible historical event. Anyone who studies historical happenings knows that often through time, and event changes and mythologizes. Nevertheless, it is understood that something probably did happen. Yes, many of the details differ quite a lot. However, many of the basics stay the same. The basic includes that there appears in many of the world's different historical records, an event similar to that of the flood recorded in the Old Testament. Your second argument was simply a statement, and not an argument. You said there are many things wrong with the flood that cannot be explained. That is a claim: now you back it up. However, I did follow your link, and what did I find on the same website as your link, but a response to all those things wrong with the flood. [8] If you want to discuss those problems further, please do. But you can't make a claim as you did, leave it, and expect anyone to take that as a reason why the flood is a contradiction to history. Finally, I would like to point out that Pro did not even attempt to respond to my list of arguments for the possibility of a flood. I repeat, I don't intend for that list to prove the flood, just show that people who have done the research have amassed a large number of evidences leading towards Noah's flood. There are proofs against a flood, such as your Egyptian example, I admit. And there are people who have responded to them. [9] This is a debate over who has the better evidence. It is not a debate over a contradiction. And I do believe that there is much evidence such as spoken of briefly above, to believe that there may have well been a global flood. Esther As I am sure you are well aware, your argument here is an argument from silence. And being such, you cannot prove anything, lease of all call it contradicting history. However, Persia's queen is call Amestris in the Greek writings of the time. Xerxes had several wives and it is possible that both Amestris and Vashti were wives of Xerxes, with Amestris being the same as Esther. There are many verified historical facts in the book of Esther, that when it is a sole speaker of other historical items which are not contradicted elsewhere, historical science gives it the benefit of the doubt. For instance, it correctly speaks of Ahasuerus, being the other name of Xerxes I. It identifies Susa, being in western Persia and one of the capital cities. It speaks of his third year (483 B.C.) and the presence of the army, which suggests he was building support for his invasion of Greece (preparations from 483-480). The name Mordecai appears in treasury records from the time period as a government official. Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) was the next to last king of Judah, being deported to Babylon in 597 B.C. He was "carried away from Jerusalem." During the feast honoring a new queen (Esther's feast), it was customary to forgive taxes and give gifts, as Herodotus notes in his history of the Persian Empire. Herodotus also notes that Xerxe's father Darius had divided the realm into 20 satrapies, of which the rulers are mentioned in 3:12, 8:9, and 9:3. Provinces were smaller units under the satrapies. The Encyclopaedia Britannica writes, "The reference to the 127 provinces is in itself not improbable… it is at any rate in perfect harmony with history that the book of Esther includes India among the subject provinces." It cannot be called a contradiction as it is but an argument from silence. And when it speaks accurately of other verifiable matters, the benefit of the doubt is given to the other unverified items. All that can be said, is that there appears to be some unique statements of historical matters in Esther. Thank you for giving me this chance to do research and respond. It is an enjoyable debate. I have shown possibilities and probabilities. There are no contradictions. Cheers. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] Archer, Gleason L. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. p 364. [3] http://www.ancientsites.com... [4] Natural History 2.77 [5] Saturnalia 1.3 [6] McClellan, J.B. The New Testament, A New Translation. v 1, p 741. [7] Haley, John W. Alleged Discrepancies. p 367. [8] http://www.trueorigin.org... [9] While I do not necessarily agree with all that AiG teaches, I link to them here to simply say that this has not gone unanswered. http://www.answersingenesis.org... http://www.answersingenesis.org...