Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2012 11:27:09 GMT 10
This is not the first time that 'bible critics' has shown 'skepticism'. Once upon a time 'critics' claimed that the Hittites did not exist ( thus the Bible was a fraud yada yada yada). You can now do a Phd in Hittite studies and their existance is beyond reproof.
I'd be very cautious about these bible skeptics they've had mud on their face very often in the past, yet they never learn to be more guarded in their 'conclusive proof of the inaccuracy of the Bible'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2012 11:30:07 GMT 10
And before we dismiss Luke as historically reliable lets consider - www.ichthus.info/Luke/intro.htmlTestimonials of Luke's accuracy I have listed a number of the more extraordinary feats of Luke that showed that Luke did "having traced the course of all things accurately from the first" One of the greatest skeptic and also a great archaeologist was the late Sir William Ramsay. He studied under the famous liberal German historical schools in the mid-nineteenth century. Known for its scholarship, this school taught that the New Testament was not a historical document. With this premise, Ramsay investigated biblical claims as he searched through Asia Minor. What he discovered caused him to reverse his initial view. He wrote: I began with a mind unfavorable to it [Acts], for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself often brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. ---- In: William Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1982), 8. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2012 11:33:17 GMT 10
Further - answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090126172810AAuNopDReliability of Luke as a Historian (Proof of the Historicity of Jesus Christ).? Let's consider the following quotes from Sir William Ramsay, one of the greatest archaeologists in history. In his life he did extensive archaeological work in Asia Minor (modern Turkey). Entering into this work he was an unbeliever who was thoroughly convinced that the book of Acts was the product of the 2nd Century (a theory taught in the German schools of higher criticism). As a matter of fact, one of his goals was to prove that the history given by Luke was inaccurate. However, his beliefs were drastically changed as his archaeological finds proved that the book of Acts was accurate to the minutest detail. As a result Sir William Ramsay became a Christian. He writes: I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favour of the conclusion which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a second century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations [14] Luke is a historian of first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. [15]
In the 19th century, Acts 14:6 was consistently presented as an example of a historical error in the book of Acts. The reason for this is that the verse portrays Paul and Barnabas as entering the province of Lycaonia when they came to Lystra and Derbe. The problem with this was that Iconium, the city they had fled from, was also in Lycaonia. However, this is one of the passages Sir William Ramsay checked for the historical accuracy of Acts. His archaeological finds showed that Iconium was made a part of Phrygia only during A.D. 37-72, both before and after this it was part of Lycaonia. [17] Thus we find that Luke's statement was written in the one and only period of history that it would be accurate! At one time, Luke was thought to be totally inaccurate regarding details surrounding the birth of Christ in Luke 2:1-3. The critics once argued that there was no census, Quirinius was governor of Syria at a later date and that citizens did not have to return to their homelands. However, archaeology has shown that the Romans did hold censuses every 14 years. Furthermore, it is now known that Quirinius was likely governor of Syria twice, once around 6 A.D., but the other around 7 B.C., which would correspond to the time of the census of Luke 2. Finally, a papyrus was found in Egypt which gives directions for a Roman census and orders all people away from home to return in preparation of the coming census. [18]
In 1962, two Italian archaeologists dug up a Latin inscription in the town of Caesarea. It read "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea, has presented the Tiberium to the Caesareans." [19] This article is archived in the University of Clemson's online archives. It was submitted by the Spurgeon Foundation of Clemson. www.clemson.edu/spurgeon/books/ap…
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2012 11:41:50 GMT 10
Further we Christians have little to fear from these 'skeptics' consider - www.evidenceandanswers.org/articles/Historical%20Reliability%20of%20the%20Gospels.pdf
Archaeology and the GospelsNext we must answer the question, “Does evidence support the claim that the gospel writers recorded a historically accurate record?” Archaeology confirms the historicity of the Bible, including the gospels. Archaeologist Randall Price states that when it comes to the Bible, there are over 100,000 discoveries related to Biblical references.3 Among the gospel writers, Luke is found to be a very accurate historian. He names 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands without error. Modern mariners have confirmed the accuracy of the details surrounding Paul’s final journey from Palestine to Italy. Luke used titles of government officials, proconsuls, and tetrarchs. While some are unique, they are found to be accurate. For example, in Luke's announcement of Jesus' public ministry (Luke 3:1), he mentions “Lysanius tetrarch of Abilene." Scholars questioned (  sound familiar? - Skippy ) Luke's credibility since the only Lysanius known for centuries was a ruler of Chalcis who ruled from 40-36 BC. However, an inscription dated to the time of Tiberius, who ruled from 14-37 AD, was found recording a temple dedication which names Lysanius as the "tetrarch of Abila" near Damascus. In Acts 28:7, Luke gives Plubius, the chief man on the island of Malta, the title "first man of the island." Scholars questioned this unusual title and deemed it unhistorical. ::)Inscriptions have recently been discovered on the island that indeed gives Plubius the title of "first man." Historian Sir William Ramsey was once a skeptic who traveled to the Middle East to verify the accuracy of Luke’s work. He seriously questioned Luke’s credibility, but after years of research he concluded, “Luke is a historian of first rank…In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”4Luke’s tested accuracy gives us confidence in his works. FF Bruce, one of the most respected New Testament scholars writes, “A man whose accuracy can be demonstrated in matters where we are able to test it is likely to be accurate even where the means for testing him are not available. Accuracy is a habit of mind, and we know from happy experience that some people are habitually accurate just as others can be depended upon to be inaccurate. Luke’s record entitles him to be regarded as a writer of habitual
accuracy.”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2012 11:52:49 GMT 10
What do you have to say about this? The Gospel of Luke tells us that Caesar Augustus ordered a census taken of the entire Roman world, possibly for tax purposes. Palestine was part of that world, so Joseph, earthly father of Jesus Christ, took his pregnant wife Mary to Bethlehem to register. Joseph was from the house and line of David, who had lived in Bethlehem. That NEVER happened. The first Census was done by Vespasian in 74 CE. The first census claim is very disputable - consider - www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/10/16/A-Brief-Comment-on-the-Census-in-Luke-2.aspx#ArticleLuke 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.” Dr. John Elder notes that: ...archeological discoveries prove beyond doubt that regular enrollment of taxpayers was a feature of Roman rule and have shown that a census was taken every fourteen years. A large Egyptian papyrus, telling of an enrollment AD 174-175, refers to two previous enrollments, one in 160-161 and another in 146-147, at intervals of fourteen years. A much earlier papyrus, dated in the reign of Tiberius [14-37 AD] reports a man’s wife and dependents for enrollment and apparently has a reference to a tax roll compiled AD 20-21. Another shows an enrollment under Nero AD 62-63; another lists those exempt from the poll tax in the forty-first year of Augustus, who began his reign in 27 BC. Since Augustus records that he set about early in his reign to organize the empire, the first census may have been either 23-22 BC or in 9-8 BC; the latter would be the census to which the Gospel of Luke refers. (Elder, J. 1960. Prophets, Idols, and Diggers. Indianapolis/New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co., pp. 159-60).
As a Christian I find the 'skeptics' have a poor track record in their claims. |
|
sound familiar? - Skippy ) Luke's credibility since the only Lysanius known for centuries was a ruler of