Jesus was called the "Son of David." David was a distant relative, not Jesus's literal dad. Just because you take it to mean that this guy had different dads doesn't mean that the God-inspired writer meant it that way. It's clear that Zerah was a related fatherly figure to Achan, even if it doesn't mean he was his direct father.
Also, the word "greatgrandson" or the words "great grandson" does not appear in the literal translation of the Bible. However, the word "greatgrandson" does appear in the NIV, but the NIV has a tendency to paraphrase passages. I do not think the NIV is as accurate as the King James or the literal translation of the Bible.
Daniel 1:1; "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it."
Nebuchadnezzar was not king during the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim (606 BCE). In fact, Nebuchadnezzar did not invade Jerusalem until 597 BCE. By which time, Jehoiakim was dead and his son, Jehoiachin, was ruling in his place.
Daniel 1:1 (KJV) In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/q33.htm
Response:
The third year of Jehoiakim's reign would have been 606 BC, if you use the Judah method of counting the years of a king's reign. But, if you use the Babylonian method, then the third year of Jehoiakim would have been 605 BC.
The Babylonians included an "accession year," which the link explains.
Daniel lived in Babylon. And it's natural that he would use the Babylonian method of tracking time. It would be as natural as adjusting your watch if you moved to another country with a different Time Zone.
It is true that Babylon besieged Jerusalem in 597 BC, and, for that matter, again in 586 BC. But it is also true that Daniel, chapter 1, says that Babylon besieged Jerusalem in 605 BC. According to the Bible, Babylon besieged Jerusalem three times.
I think at the very least the Bible, whether you believe or not, is semi-historical. The question is though, is it historical fiction (ie, a fictional story based on historical fact) or is it a historical nonfiction, essentially factual. I still think that while some things are questionable there is a great deal of fact there, such as places, events, people and social customs, but the authors use such facts, and interpret them to fit theological purposes. However, just because they are interpreted in a way that some might find ludicrous or false, doesn't mean the facts are gone, they are still there.
Originally posted by Elastigirl
Daniel 1:1 (KJV) In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/q33.htm
Response:
The third year of Jehoiakim's reign would have been 606 BC, if you use the Judah method of counting the years of a king's reign. But, if you use the Babylonian method, then the third year of Jehoiakim would have been 605 BC.The Babylonians included an "accession year," which the link explains.
Daniel lived in Babylon. And it's natural that he would use the Babylonian method of tracking time. It would be as natural as adjusting your watch if you moved to another country with a different Time Zone.
It is true that Babylon besieged Jerusalem in 597 BC, and, for that matter, again in 586 BC. But it is also true that Daniel, chapter 1, says that Babylon besieged Jerusalem in 605 BC. According to the Bible, Babylon besieged Jerusalem three times.
The difference between the Babylonian and Judahian calendar is one year. Nebuchadnezzar did not invade Jerusalem for the first time until 597 BCE According to The Bible, Nebuchadnezzar invaded Jerusalem nine years earlier in 606 BCE. Interesting, considering that he was not king of Babylon at that time.
Originally posted by Kontraz
isn't it simply possible that someone wrote a date wrong? Lol, nobody who wrote the bible was perfect, lol.Sure they were GOd-driven, but they could have been in slight error. Keep in mind that many biblical events were passed down orally for hundreds of years before finally being written down...
Originally posted by Elastigirl
The Bible is 100% fact.
The Bible is 100% fact. And despite if there seems to be a place where the Bible contradicts itself, it really doesn't. The problem is in our interpretation.maybe the problem is in your understanding more than others interpretation, so the bible is 100% fact then, well if that is so we wouldnt be here because the inbreeding going on from the start of would have ended the human race all by itself.
Originally posted by finti
maybe the problem is in your understanding more than others interpretation, so the bible is 100% fact then, well if that is so we wouldnt be here because the inbreeding going on from the start of would have ended the human race all by itself.
now that's one of the worst arguements i think i've ever heard. Yes, inbreeding is wrong, but even so, mass inbreeding would not cause much notice. I mean, if everyone was "misformed" to the same degree, it would be unnoticable amongst the same generation (or mass-generation).
Originally posted by Kontraz
now that's one of the worst arguements i think i've ever heard. Yes, inbreeding is wrong, but even so, mass inbreeding would not cause much notice. I mean, if everyone was "misformed" to the same degree, it would be unnoticable amongst the same generation (or mass-generation).
It is impossible for the entire human race to descend from a breeding population of two people. Intergenerational inbreeding would result in haploid nucleotide chains that are too similar to form DNA molecules. After approximately three generations, all offspring would either be unable to reproduce with one another or completely sterile.
Yes, inbreeding is wrong, but even so, mass inbreeding would not cause much notice. it would be unnoticable amongst the same generationwe humans are part of nature and as with all animals too much inbreeding will be a threat to the species existence.
I mean, if everyone was "misformed" to the same degree, it would be unnoticable amongst the same generation (or mass-generationyeah since we were in on bad arguments
"maybe the problem is in your understanding more than others interpretation, so the bible is 100% fact then, well if that is so we wouldnt be here because the inbreeding going on from the start of would have ended the human race all by itself."
Well, actually, until Moses was given the laws by God, 'inbreeding' as u say wasnt considered wrong.
If, that is, i took what u said the right way.
Originally posted by Elastigirl
Jesus was called the "Son of David." David was a distant relative, not Jesus's literal dad. Just because you take it to mean that this guy had different dads doesn't mean that the God-inspired writer meant it that way. It's clear that Zerah was a related fatherly figure to Achan, even if it doesn't mean he was his direct father.
it means nothing, it means that they can't get their facts straight
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Nebuchadnezzar did not invade Jerusalem [b]for the first time until 597 BCE According to The Bible, Nebuchadnezzar invaded Jerusalem nine years earlier in 606 BCE. Interesting, considering that he was not king of Babylon at that time. [/B]
Wrong, Nebuchadnezzar beseiged Jerusalem for the first time in 605 BC, not 597 BC, and not 606 BC. He was king in 605 BC.
605 BC was the 4th year of the reign of Jehoiakim in the Judah calendar. In the Babylonian calender, because of the "ascension year" rule, it only counted as Jehioakim's 3rd year of reign. Daniel used the Babylonian calendar. Therefore, 605 was when Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem for the first time.
Jeremiah used the Judah calendar when he says it was in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. (see Jeremiah 46:2)
There were 3 total beseiges/attacks by Babylon. 605, 597, and 587/86.
In the 597 B.C. deportation, Jehoiachin, Ezekiel and others were taken away; this deportation is described in 2 Kings 24:14-16. In the 587 B.C. invasion, the city of Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed (2 Kings 25:9-10).
By the way, there are also some Babylonian artifacts/writings that support the 605 seige.
Many of the historical events in the bible might have happenned, but that does not mean that the message of the bible (of there being a god) is also true.
For example, I could write a story set in 1915. There is a big Giant hedgehog who lives in the sky. Also in the story is mentioned a great war that killed many millions. Just because the historical part of the story is true, does not mean that the whole thing is accurate.
The spiritual teachings might be valid in part. THe teacings of jesus on how to live ones life are still valid today, but that does not mean that he was a god.
Some of the spiritual teachings might still be valid (although I still strongly disagree with the total surrendering of oneself to a superior being). However, the Religious teachings are not necesserally valid.
Religion is about faith, NOT truth!!!.
If you want to have faith in something, then do so, but that is very different from proving that it is true.