BETHLEHEM
Bethlehem
The city of Bethlehem is about six miles south of Jerusalem in Israel. Bethlehem was the birthplace of David (1 Samuel 16) and the birth place of Jesus Christ (Matthew 2:1). Remarkably, the prophet Micah predicted that the Messiah of Israel would be born in the small village of Bethlehem about 700 years before the birth of Christ (Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:6).
July 16th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Except that the story was made up.
Luke
2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
2:2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
2:3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
1. Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria 6-7 A.D.
Herod died 4 B.C.
That is a ten year difference.
2. No Roman census required a return to one’s birth place. That would not only be monumentally distruptive, it would also be illogical as the purpose of Roman censuses are for taxation - they wanted the person on their property. Those being counted did not move, the enumerators traveled, as they still do today.
3. Most certainly, the Bible is wrong about “all the world”. The new world was unknown to the Romans. The Aztecs, the Mayas, the Incas and my favorite, the Calusa, were unknown to the Romans and thus not counted.
4. Even given that explaining away and twisting “all the world” to mean - “the world known by the Romans”, the census of Quirinius as governor of Syria was of only that area Quirinius governed - a small territory within the Roman Empire.
This story of Jesus being born in Bethlehem was manufactured to fit the prophesy (of Micah). Granted though, it is not quite as blatant as
Matthew
21:4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,
21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
I recommend you to read some excellent books on the topic by F.F. Bruce, Craig Blomberg, and Norman Geisler. All three have done tremendous work in the area of Christian apologetics, with a particular focus on Bible difficulties.
Where do you think Jesus was born?
Did Jesus know about the Bethlehem lie?
Given that the synoptic gospels were likely circulating between 70-90 AD, and that the gospel stories were likely well-known prior to that (told around campfires and dinner tables), there is a good chance that Mother Mary was still alive when the Bethlehem birth was circulating. Was she part of the conspiracy?
July 17th, 2008 at 8:31 am
First, your three questions, any answer would be pure speculation on anyones part.
Thank you for the author recommendations, I googled them and shall add them to my list.
However, I have problems with apologetics itself. Either the Bible was written by humans or is the Word of God. If the former, then apologetics and exegesis are needed. If the latter, no, why would the words of the Lord God Almighty need human explanation?
And there is no explaining away “all the world”. Either God meant - ALL the world - or He would have written something else. Unless you would like to posit that Roman census-takers got into boats, sailed across the Atlantic, learned the Mayan language and convinced the people there to travel back to the town of their birth in order to be counted for Roman tax purposes.
This is not reduction to the absurd. It says “all the world”. “All the world” was not counted. The Bible has many errors.
Genesis
41:56 And the famine was over all the face of the earth: and Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt.
41:57 And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands.
It says “famine was over all the face of the earth” and “all countries came into Egypt”. I guess this is when the Mayans made themselves known to the Old World. The famine “over all the face of the earth” of course was in tropical Middle America also, so the Mayans somehow heard of the storehouses of grain in Egypt and got into their reed boats, sailed across the Atlantic and into the Mediterranean Sea and got food to bring back to their starving children?
If God Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth exists, then he surely knew about the North and South American continents that He made. He would have known to put a qualifier and not the absolute “all” in these sentences.
But Bronze Age men writing about just the part of the world they knew, to them, it was “all” the world.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:02 am
On a side note, I met Norm Geisler a few years ago, and I have to say that I’m not impressed with his approach. At the time, he was offering “studying tips” lectures as a means for luring in unsuspecting college students so he could proselytize. I think they call that a “bait and switch.” It also may have kept critics of his apologetics from recognizing what he was up to and showing up to dispute him.
I agree with Botany Bay that the “amazing” fulfillment of prophecies would be more amazing if the people writing about the fulfillment didn’t have an agenda.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Skeptimal, I don’t like those tactics either. It would be interesting to hear Geisler’s response.
Botany, I’m interested in learning your view of the Bible. Is it a valuable piece of history? If so, what gives it value?
July 17th, 2008 at 11:35 am
So, how do you have an agenda about something 700 years or more into the future, and how would you predict the exact place of birth of someone who you weren’t sure would even be born?
And, Bobay, yeah, your argument is pretty absurd.
July 17th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Mark,
You’re looking at the wrong end of the equation. The agenda was on the part of the Christians who made the Jesus story fit the pre-existing prophecies. Either that, or they re-interpret the prophecy to fit their guy.
Also, a lot of prophecies are not as specific as the “born in Bethlehem” prophecy. If you get one that’s kind of vague, it’s easy to reinterpret it to fit whatever is going on at the moment. A modern example is the way the book of Revelation keeps getting reinterpreted so that whatever is happening in the world fits the “end times” prophecies. We went through a period of time when a lot of Christians were absolutely convinced that the European Union was the anti-Christ.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:39 am
John,
You asked, is the Bible a valuable piece of history?
Well, certainly the Gutenburgs are!
Serious, obviously you are asking about the hitstory contained within the Bible. I am sure historians use every scrap of information that they can obtain. What the writers said, didn’t say, their biases, even things that they got wrong can provide information to historians.
Just because the Bible talks about real cities etc., doesn’t make the God of the Bible real.
Just because the Iliad talks about Troy, doesn’t make Zeus real.
July 21st, 2008 at 1:53 pm
BotanyBay, i appreciated your comments above with regards to the Mayans. Something I had not considered as such, but clearly correct. Always fun to point out another profound fallacy of the ‘literal interpretation’ bible people. Just another great example of how obvious it is that it is not a literal document.
John, I do think it is a valuable historical artifact (just like any Roman mythology or, early text on alchemy, or treatise on witchcraft would be valuable as history). It is only when some ascribe mystical properties to said document that it becomes subject to derision.
Mark, I notice you did not touch Botany’s great Mayans comment. Come on now, what is the solution you have for that one. Was obviously NOT all of the world… so as far as the bible being some amazing prognosticative tool, looks like it is failing. Far from absurd, it is exactly the sort of thing that your book, were it truly ‘magic’, would have adddressed. And your take is…?
- ID
July 21st, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Dave,
I didn’t reply because I didn’t feel it was necessary. Either Bobay is outright lying, or he is an idiot. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, I thought he was lying.
The original word for earth in Genesis 41 means: common, country, earth, field, land, ground, nations, way, world.
In Luke, the original word is defined as: land, i.e. the (terrene part of the) globe; spec. the Roman empire, earth, world.
Kinda deflates his point quite a bit.
July 21st, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Oh, by the way, Dave,
I have noticed that you tend to post and run, so I don’t think that I owe you any explanation at any time for anything you post. (I thought it was because you haven’t figured out how to view older posts ;D)
You can come up with a million excuses for not believing in God and / or the bible, but none of them are because the bible is “lacking” in any way. The lack is in your understanding.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:53 am
Cute man. You can sure come up with justifications and qualifications for anything… but there were, indeed, people in the americas at that time. this is one of those things you can see with your eyes, even. take a vacation and find a natural history museum in south america. might open your adorably closed mind.
And the ‘original word for earth in genesis’?!? as if you are a scholar of dead middle-eastern languages and have read the original text? you are regurgitating nonsense from a jesus-propaganda website. and we can all see it. You dont get to say the bible is literally true, then say, “well, this one time it meant something not literal… ”
Whatever. I have found more intelligent and open people to discuss with. Ellen is great. Learn from her. until then you can go to church and stick your head in the sand awhile longer.
The bible is lacking the one thing you ascribe to it: truth.
- ID
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Dave,
I DIDN’T say that it meant something not literal, you still have trouble understanding the written English language. I said that the original word meant several different things than the English translation that Bobay used. My NIV translation gets it right when it says, “…entire Roman world…” in Luke 2:1. AND, I got the translation from the Hebrew / Greek Bible on my computer.
So, WHO has the closed mind?
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:15 pm
So Mark, you still have not addressed the existence of indiginous people in the americas and how that fits into your magic timeline. if all people died out in the flood, why is it that somehow there were previously, and remained afterwards, people in the americas? apparently the bible didnt think it necessary to even acknowledge that there were other people on earth… kinda a glaring omission, no?
Keep trying to fit the pieces into the picture you have built in your mind.. but somedauy there will be one that just cant it no matter how hard you try. I hope on that day I am still here to welcome to the rational fold.
- ID