Christianity is False

Geocentrism I never said the entire Bible was written from a human point of view, only some of it. What"s more, writing from a human point of view does not automatically imply that error has infiltrated the word of God. Most newspaper articles are written from a human point of view, does that mean they are wrong? Notice Pro argues that "You have to concede that human error CAN get into the Bible because it"s written from a human POV." Because something "can" or "could have" happened is no proof that they did! The Bible authors "could" have exercised their free will and chose to corrupt God"s message, but I have no reason to think they did. Pro could have to show that they did, or even wanted to. You can argue that because something could have happened that therefore it did. On top of all this, God allowing man to put the truth of his message in man"s own words does not make it any less true. The Book of Joshua doesn"t say the sun stood still in outer space, but rather, in the sky. So the intent of the writer and of God was not to express truths of astronomy, but truths of the way we experience or see things. So what did those on the battlefield see? No matter the science or miracle involved, they saw the sun standing still all day long! How else should the writer of Joshua put it? Neither Christianity or the Bible teaches that everything in the Bible must be taken literally; just read Revelation 1 and 12. Furthermore, contrary to Pro"s position, the sun actually does move. "The Sun orbits the center of the Milky Way at a distance of approximately 24,000"26,000 light-years from the galactic center, completing one clockwise orbit, as viewed from the galactic north pole, in about 225"250 million years." "Since the Sun consists of a plasma and is not solid, it rotates faster at its equator than at its poles." http://en.wikipedia.org... Quirinius Some scholars call attention to the fact that the term used by Luke, and usually translated "governor," is he"ge"monR42;. This Greek term is used to describe Roman legates, procurators, and proconsuls, and it means, basically, a "leader" or "high executive officer." Some, therefore, suggest that, at the time of what Luke refers to as the "first registration," Quirinius served in Syria in the capacity of a special legate of the emperor exercising extraordinary powers. A factor that may also aid in understanding the matter is Josephus" clear reference to a dual rulership of Syria, since in his account he speaks of two persons, Saturninus and Volumnius, serving simultaneously as "governors of Syria." (Jewish Antiquities, XVI, 277, 280 [ix, 1]; XVI, 344 [x, 8]) Thus, if Josephus is correct in his listing of Saturninus and Varus as successive presidents of Syria, it is possible that Quirinius served simultaneously either with Saturninus (as Volumnius had done) or with Varus prior to Herod"s death (which likely occurred in 1 B.C.E.). The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge presents this view: "Quirinius stood in exactly the same relation to Varus, the governor of Syria, as at a later time Vespasian did to Mucianus. Vespasian conducted the war in Palestine while Mucianus was governor of Syria; and Vespasian was legatus Augusti, holding precisely the same title and technical rank as Mucianus.""1957, Vol. IX, pp. 375, 376. Luke"s proved accuracy in historical matters gives sound reason for accepting as factual his reference to Quirinius as governor of Syria around the time of Jesus" birth. It may be remembered that Josephus, virtually the only other source of information, was not born until 37 C.E., hence nearly four decades after Jesus" birth. Luke, on the other hand, was already a physician traveling with the apostle Paul by about 49 C.E. when Josephus was but a boy of 12. Of the two, Luke, even on ordinary grounds, is the more likely source for reliable information on the matter of the Syrian governorship just prior to Jesus" birth. Justin Martyr, a Palestinian of the second century C.E., cited the Roman records as proof of Luke"s accuracy as regards Quirinius" governorship at the time of Jesus" birth. (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, edited by B. Orchard, 1953, p. 943) There is no evidence that Luke"s account was ever challenged by early historians, even by early critics such as Celsus. Jericho Pro clams the 1400 date proves the Bible wrong. Well, show me the verse in the Bible that gives you that date and I"m with you! The date you are arguing against is simply one of others that have been suggested by Christians. Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah"s Witnesses and Catholics all have different dates for Jesus" death and crucifixion, does that make the Bible wrong? How could it, when the Bible is not the one producing these dates? At most, Pro is attacking one interpretation of the evidence, not the Bible itself, so I don"t see how this proves Christianity false. Being Christian has nothing to do with the date of Jericho"s fall! I also don"t see why the people of Jericho couldn"t hold onto the custom of having their pottery wheel-made while others around them preferred hand-made pottery. In any case, we don"t even know that these C-14 dates are reliable either. It is claimed that the half-life of carbon-14 is 5, 730 years. No human being has lived long enough to see an atom of carbon decay, so this is pure speculation. Unless Pro can show us how they know this, then they cannot know the age of anything using carbon-decay rates. Further, any scientist depending on such dates "assumes that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere was constant " any variation would speed up or slow down the clock. The clock was initially calibrated by dating objects of known age such as Egyptian mummies and bread from Pompeii; work that won Willard Libby the 1960 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. But even he "realized that there probably would be variation", says Christopher Bronk Ramsey, a geochronologist at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the latest work, published today in Science. Various geologic, atmospheric and solar processes can influence atmospheric carbon-14 levels." http://www.google.com... So Pro's sources for Kathleen's dates are speculative at best. Pro's arguments boils down to false accusations of a geocentric model, biased tendencies to trust a later historian (Josephus) over one who was closer to the time of the events (Luke), and presenting a false dilemma that Christianity is false if it doesn't vindicate a particular date not found on the Bible, the only Scripture on which Christianity is based.