The Bible is Not Without Error

Crucifixion Time My opponent said that I have failed to give evidence for two differing time systems, whereas he has given evidence to show that Romans time also started at dawn. 1) If he gave evidence to show that Romans time "also" started at dawn, this implies he agrees that the Jewish way is to start at dawn. Therefore, I only have to show that the Romans had a different time system. 2) You did not respond with such evidence. Your only response was a quote by the Atheist Bible Companion, which also didn't actually give evidence but simply restated your assertion. You gave no evidence. 3) I already gave internal, external, and contextual evidence which apparently was missed. -John uses the Roman timing system throughout his gospel including in John 1:39, 4:6, 12:1, 20:19. Only by use of the Roman system and not the Jewish system does the times given in these passages make sense. - I quoted from Pliny the Elder who said that the Roman day ran from "midnight to midnight," and I quoted from Macrobius who said the Roman day began "at the sixth hour of the night," with the sixth hour being the middle hour of darkness: midnight. -I gave two other external sources which also explain the Roman timing system: www.ancientsites.com and J.B McClellan. 3) My opponent ignored my evidences and gave no evidences except for someone else's mistaken quote. There is no contradiction when one has the integrity to look at the verses in their proper contexts. First Appearance of Jesus 1) My opponent writes that he provided internal evidence that proves Matthew and Luke each claim to record the first appearance of Jesus. I have looked for such evidence and they only thing written was a quotation of the passages themselves. This is not evidence. In fact, given the quotation, it should be easy to see by the audience that neither passage says it was the first. They each only mention one or the other. He also quotes from the Atheist Bible Companion which basically copies his stance, but also gives no argument whatsoever to their side. What he calls evidence is simply a statement/opinion with no proof. 2) In reference to Matthew 28, my opponent wrote that “Galilee in this passage was the first meeting place.” However, to be completely honest, one must say that it is the first meeting place mentioned in Matthew. Again, Matthew does not say that it was the very first meeting place. One can infer what they want, but if one is to maintain a semblance of intellectual honesty, it must be recognized that neither Matthew nor Luke mention that it was the first meeting. 3) My opponent says that in Matthew there is no mention of Jerusalem. This is correct. However, this is admittedly and obviously an argument from silence. Nothing can be concluded. 4) Over and over my opponent uses claims from the Atheist Bible Companion as evidence for his stance. The only time such quotations (without evidence) can be used as evidence is when the source/person is an authority on the subject. I don’t think many would agree that the Atheist Bible Companion is an authority, especially when it doesn’t back up its assertions either. Concerning these passages, the Companion is also being completely dishonest in its comments. It is creating a contradiction where the passages are completely silent. Neither says first. 5) Again, my opponent concludes that he has given evidence for his side. All he has done is quoted the passages concerned. He has not pointed out where in the passage it says this was the first appearance. It is a complete argument from silence. 6) The point that the cities are far apart is begging the question. However, if neither of the passages say “first” or “only” appearance, then given that Jesus is reported to have been around for 40 days, he would have plenty of time for the journey. The Flood Again, the argument over the flood is much too large to give it the deserved attention on here. There is a preponderance of evidence on both sides, and based on philosophical presuppositions, one tends to come to their appropriate conclusion. I will respond to what I can given the limited space on here. I know much will be lacking due to lack of space. But, let it be shown though that there are arguments on both sides and to simply assert that the flood is a historical error is to be unjustifiably dogmatic. 1) My opponent used the existence of the pyramids as being evidence against the flood. The dates of Egypt are typically given from inscriptions on tombs of lists of dynasties. Often, scholars then line up the dynasties sequentially to give such dates as you have given. However, the dynasties often ran along side each other, concurrently, or were not independent dynasties but a part of larger ones. [1] 2) Some have dated the Israelites in Egypt to be during the 12th dynasty. Josephus wrote, “They [the Egyptians] set them also to build pyramids.” [2] Given the shortened/concurant dynasty chronology, this would be in agreement with the accepted timeline of the pyramid construction. The type of pyramids of that period (mud-brick) is consistent with the Biblical record-Exodus 5:7. A.R. David also agrees with the possibility of the Israelites building at least some of the pyramids. [3] 3) Biblical dating of the flood is usually a range, not a set date. The dates vary, such as the infamous Ussher dating it around 2349 B.C. 4) My opponent asked questions concerning the technicalities of Noah. While there are answers, the debate is not over Noah or how many animals were on the ark, but on whether a global flood as recorded in the Bible is a historical error. Esther 1) Concerning the attack on Esther, my opponent has concocted an argument from silence. It basically is: because there are no other documents verifying these particularities of Esther, then it certainly never happened. Of course, his conclusion does not logically follow for he is arguing from silence. 2) When reviewing historical documents, when a document records a number of externally verifiable facts, the typical rule is to give it the benefit of the doubt when speaking of other matters not verified. This is the case for Esther. 3) My opponent ignored my whole previous reply. In fact, it appears he did not read it. He asked about the evidential value of Esther. I previously gave a number of verified examples which give credence to the historical accuracy of the book. To say “there is none” is to ignore my previous examples. 4) In your response, you have shown little we don’t agree on. But you have ignored my basic argument for the historicity of Esther, including possible external references to the lady Esther. And you respond with an entire argument from silence. Darius The "Babylonian Chronicles" tells us that Babylon fell on October 13, 539 B.C. Historical records and Akkadian cuneiform say a Mede named Gubaru was ruler in Babylon at this time, having been appointed by King Cyrus. Gubaru was born in 601 B.C., giving him the exact age of Darius as recorded in Daniel, and the same man as Darius. Even more, Darius is not a proper name, but a title appearing in Avestan meaning "Holder of the Scepter" or simply "king." Daniel used the title in reference to Gubaru. And Josephus records "Darius the Mede, who along with his relative, Cyrus the King of Persia, brought an end to the Babylonian empire." It appears that after the fall of Babylon, Cyrus was needed on another front and placed Gubaru-Darius in charge to rule for a year or so until he could return. Darius was then retained as the governor of Babylon with the crown given back to Cyrus and eventually Cambyses. I could go into much greater detail on why this is thought to be true, but as my length has reached its limit, I shall for now stop. Nevertheless, my opponent is again making an argument from silence. There is no error. [1] James, P., Centuries of Darkness. [2] Josephus, Antiquities, II-IX-1. [3] David, A.R., The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt.