I believe it was Mako or Consummate Deist that brought up and interesting tidbit the other week. When was Jesus (assuming that he actually existed) born? What year was his birth year? Mark and John never mention his birth; only Matthew and Luke mention it, highly embellished with miraculous happenings and mythological creatures in the manner of Mithra, Osiris, Krishna and other earlier dying/resurrecting/savior God-men. However, it is impossible to set a date based on Matthew and Luke, because neither agrees. In order to address the problems facing the establishment of a date of birth, we must first set forth those dates that are fairly well established historically:

Herod the Great - reigned 40 to 4 BCE
Caesar Augustus – reigned 24 BCE to 14 CE
Quirinius (known as Cyrenius in Luke) – 1st term as Governor 6 to 4 BCE, second term 6 to 9 CE
John the Baptist – 28 CE to 31 or 32 CE
Pontius Pilate – served from 26 to 36 CE
Tiberius Caesar – reigned 14 to 37 CE

Matthew says that the birth took place during the reign of King Herod. So by Matthew, he had to have been born no later than 4 BCE, but probably around 6 BCE. There are several problems here: First, there was no Roman census conducted during the reign of Herod the Great. Although Judah was a protectorate of Rome, as an independent nation (theoretically), it was free from arbitrary Roman demands such as a census. Second, Jesus’ ministry would have started between 23 – 25 CE which would have been much too early for John, who started his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius’ reign (about 28 CE), and third, his ministry would also be too early for Pilate.
Luke says that the birth took place during the census ordered by Augustus Caesar in Quirinius’ second term as Governor of Syria (by this time Judah was no longer a protectorate, but instead a minor province of the Empire, so Augustus could then have ordered a census and according to Josephus did. so). So by Luke, he would have been born between 6 and 9 CE. Once again there are problems: Jesus would have started his ministry much too late for John the Baptist (he would have had to be only 21 – 23 when baptized by John, in this scenario) and much too late for Pontius Pilate (he would have been only 24-27 when Pilate took office and would have been only 30 when Pilate was relieved of duty and returned to Rome.
Even the traditional birth year of 1 CE won’t work, in that it would be too late for Herod the Great and too early for Quirinius’ second term as Governor (and consequently Augustus’ census). It may seem that I am nit-picking, but this lack of agreement at the very least casts serious doubts upon the Xian claim that the Gospels were written either by eyewitnesses or by people with access to the memories of eyewitnesses, which in turn casts doubts upon the very existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

The year everyone was gullible ........lol

what information are you basing the start of Jesus' ministry on?

That is two for the gullible!

Important evidence to disprove a December date for Christ's birth: Note that, at the time of Christ's birth, the shepherds tended their flocks in the fields at night. "Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields," wrote one Gospel writer, "keeping watch over their flock by night" (Luke 2:8). A common practice of shepherds was keeping their flocks in the field from April to October, but in the cold and rainy winter months they took their flocks back home and sheltered them.

I will see about a year later.

BIRTH 2 BC

The birth year of Jesus appears easy to calculate from the Bible:

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, in the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zachariah in the wilderness; and he went into all the region about the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. (Luke 3:1-3)
The same chapter says John the Baptist baptized Jesus when: "Jesus…was about thirty years of age." (3:23)
Tiberius was joint emperor with Augustus from 12 AD but reigned as "Caesar" from 14 AD. His "fifteenth year" would therefore end some time in 29 AD. Subtract the age of Jesus at baptism—about 30 years—gives 2 BC for Jesus’ birth. (Note, there is no year "0".)

In 525 AD the monk Dionysius Exiguus (died 556 AD) calculated Jesus was born in 1 BC. This became the basis for dividing history into BC and AD.

Nearly every researcher, however, rejects both 2 BC and 1 BC. The main reasons are:

King Herod—who had the infants around Bethlehem murdered in order to kill the newborn Jesus—is believed to have died in 4 BC;
Jesus was apparently born during a census:
In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrolment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. (Luke 2:1-3)
However, no census in 2 BC was known.

Matthew and Luke....Doesn't the NT say that he was "about 30 years of age" when he started. But the start doesn't matter, there is at least an 11 year difference in the birthdate!

Your guess of 2 BCE would miss Herod the Great - he died in 4 BCE! Try again!

Excuse me Herod the great was in search for the king of jews out of jealously he sent the wise men to find him. That is why the first born of every child was killed etc. So how is my guess wrong? He was searching for Christ. Tell me something better>

Maybe you don't understand - 2BC comes after 4 BC, not before; the BCEs (BCs to you) count from highest number down to lowest number. Therefore 6 BCE would come 4 years before 2 BCE! A man 2 to 4 years dead can not search for anyone, much less Jesus - That's how you are wrong! Also, even though Augustus was Caesar in 2 BC, Quirinius (Cyrenius) was not Governor, not for another 4 years! Your ducks still aren't in a row....try again, but remember all those folks and all those dates have to line up....something that I am waiting to see, since I can't make them.

Lets assume Jesus did exist and that events from his adult life were recorded by his contemporaries and became the Gospels.

None of his disciples were actually around at his birth though, were they? No-one - outside of his immediate family - even knew he was born.

Thus, it stands to reason that the Gospel writers were not working from recorded fact when they covered his birth - rather they were making it up in such a way as to emphasise his divine origin, perhaps loosely based on some anecdote that Jesus himself might have told them one night down the pub.....

okay Beuwolf how about these marbles

The Birth of Jesus The Christ


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Rev. Jack Barr

From the information below we can place the birth of Jesus Christ.
*At night
*Between April and September
*In the year B.C. 5
*In Bethlehem of Judea

The Magi (Wise men) came when Jesus was about one year old (4 BC)

*They found Jesus as a child, not as a baby
*They found Jesus in a house, not in a stable.
*It took time to prepare and to travel the distance they came.
*They arrived about Aug. of B.C. 4

Herod died in late November of B.C. 4

*Several months after the killing of the babies
*The killing of two years old and down shows that Jesus was about one year old at that time. Herod knew that Jesus was one year old from what the wise men told him but to be sure of killing the king, he bracketed the age in case the wise men were wrong as to the date of birth.

*Would have waited no more that two weeks for the return of the wise men. Bethlehem was only six miles from Jerusalem, less than a days journey.


The Jews

Expected the messiah to be made known to the world when he was one year old. This would coincide with the wise men coming.

Jesus was of the seed of Abraham.

*Of the tribe of Judah.
*Of the family of David.
*Of Royal Blood.
*Descendent from the Kings of Judah.
*Heir apparent to the throne and kingdom of his father David.

Jesus was born in the days (reign) of Herod the king. This was Herod the great.

A Jewish chronologer gives an account of him.
"Herod the first, called Herod the Ascalonite, was the son of Antipater, a friend of king Hyrcanus and his deputy; him the senate of Rome made king in the room of Hyrcanus his master."

The writer tacitly owns afterwards that Jesus was born in the days of this king. Herod reigned thirty seven years; and according to Dr. Lightfoot's calculation, Christ was born in the thirty fifth year of his reign, and in the thirty first of Augustus Caesar, and in the year of the world three thousand nine hundred and twenty eight, and the month Tisri, which answer to part of our September.
(From John Gill's Expositor for Matthew 2:1)

Herod the great reigned 37 BC - 4 BC. The death of Herod took place in the year of Rome AUC 750, just before the Passover. This year coincided with what in our common chronology would be B.C. 4. No facts recorded either in Matthew or Luke, throw much light on the season of the birth of Christ, the flocks and shepherds in the open field indicate spring rather than winter.
(From Electric Bible notes for Matthew 2:1)

The death of Herod: Eusebius says, that immediately, in a very little time after the slaughter of the children at Bethlehem, the divine vengeance inflicted diseases on him, which quickly brought him to his end; so that, according to the learned Dr. Lightfoot, Jesus was not above three or four months in Egypt.
(From John Gill's expositor for Matthew 2:15)

"But when Herod was dead", who died a few months after this tragedy was acted (The killing of the babies) and according to the Jewish writers, on the seventh day of the month Cisleu, and which answers to the twenty fifth of our November: The account which Josephus and Eusebius gives of his miserable death, is as follows; a burning fever seized him, with an intolerable itching all over his body, and continual pains of the colic; his feet swelled with a dropsy; he had an inflammation in the lower part of his belly: a difficulty of breathing, and convulsions in all his members; he had a voracious appetite, a stinking breath, and his intestines abounded with ulcers; when he found that all means made use of were ineffectual, and that he must die, he attempted to lay violent hands upon himself, but was prevented, and soon after expired in a very miserable manner.
(From John Gill's Expositor for Matthew 2:19)

Note: Herod killed one of his sons just five days before he died himself. The son who succeeded him as king was Archelaus. This man was like his father, a very cruel wicked man. He ordered his troops, and slew at the feast of the Passover, in the temple of the Lord, nine thousand persons: but perhaps Josephus's account is truest, who says that he sent in his whole army upon the people, who had raised a sedition, and slew, whilst they were sacrificing, about three thousand; and this happened at the beginning of his reign. (There was good reason why Joseph didn't take Jesus and Mary back to Judeah.)
(From John Gill's Expositor for Matthew 2:22)


The Coming of the Magi (Wise Men from the East)

The Magi, as Cicero says, were reckoned a sort of wise men, and doctors among the Persians.
Immediately after the departure of the wise men, Joseph with his wife and child were ordered into Egypt, which could not be done before Mary's Purification. But rather this their coming was near upon two years after the birth of Christ; since it is after wards observed, that Herod sent and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem and in all the coasts thereof from two years old and under. According to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. (Mt. 2:16)
(From John Gill's Expositor for Matthew 2:1)

The appearance of the star coincided with the birth. The journey from any part of the region vaguely called the east would occupy at least several weeks. They undertook a four month's journey, if they came from Babylon; more if they came from Persia.
(From The Electric Bible Notes for Matthew 2:1)

They saw the star when they were in the East.

There was a report by an Eastern writer, who affirms and relates the following speech as spoke by the wise men to Herod, when in conversation with him, about the matter: " A certain person, say they, of great note with us, in a book which he composed, warned us in it, mentioning these things; a child that shall descend from heaven, will be born in Palestine, whom the greatest part of the world shall serve, and the sign of his appearance shall be this; ye shall see a strange star, which shall direct you where he is; when ye shall see this, take gold, myrrh and frankincense, and go and offer them to him, and worship him, and then return, lest a great calamity befall you. Now the star has appeared unto us, and we are come to perform what was commanded us."

It is said that Seth the son of Adam gave out a prophecy, that a star should appear at the birth of the Messiah.
(From John Gill's Expositor for Matthew 2:2)

The star, which they saw in the east, then appeared; for, it seems, it had for some time disappeared: it looks as if it had been only seen at the time of Christ's birth, and when they were in their own country; for both here (Mt. 2:2) and here (Mt. 2:9) they are only said to have seen it "in the east", that is when they were in the east country; so tat it seems from that time they had no sight of it, not while they were on their journey, nor at Jerusalem; nor was it necessary they should. When they saw it in their own country, according to their best observation, it was over the land of Judea, and they were persuaded of it, that it was a certain sign that the king of the Jews was born: they therefore determine upon and prepare for a journey to Jerusalem, the metropolis of the nation, and where the king kept his court, to inquire for him; nor needed they the guidance of the star to direct them to a place so well known; but being in quest of him in an obscure place, and without any guide, this star appears to them; and, which is something very extraordinary.

Went before them till it came, and stood over where the young child was. This star had a motion, kept pace with them, and was a guide unto them, till it and they came to the place where Christ was; and then it stood directly over the house, so that they had no need to inquire of any person for him.

The appearing of this star, and then its disappearing for a time, agree, in some measure with the account the Jews give of the star which they expect will be seen at the coming of the Messiah; for they say: "after seven days that star shall be hid, and the Messiah shall be hid for twelve months -- when he shall descend, the pillar of fire shall be seen as before, in sight, and afterwards the Messiah shall be revealed, and many people shall be gathered to him."
(From John Gill's Expositor for Matthew 2:9)

Matthew 2:11 -- "And when they were come into the house, they found the young child, with Mary his mother."

According to the Ethiopians, these wise men were three, whose names they give us; the name of him that offered the gold, was Annoson; he that offered the frankincense, was Allytar; and he that offered the myrrh, Kyssan.

Gold is the symbol of kingship, frankincense of deity: (see Jeremiah 6:20), myrrh of mortification (it was used to anoint the dead.)
(from John Gill's Expositor for Matthew 2:11)


The Shepherds in the field

Luke 2:8 -- "And there were in the same country shepherds." For Bethlehem was a place of pasture. This is the area that David kept his father's sheep.
"Abiding in the field, watching over their flock by night" from this it appears that Christ was born in the night.

Jerom says it is a tradition of the Jews that Christ will come in the middle of the night, as was the Passover in Egypt.

It is not likely that Jesus was born, as is commonly received, at the latter end of December, in the depth of winter; since at the time of Jesus birth, the shepherds were out in the fields, where they lodged all night, watching their flocks.

Speaking of the flocks and cattle, "these lie in the pastures, which are in the villages, all the days of cold and heat, and do not go into the cities, until the rains descend."

The first rain is in the month Marchesvan, which answers to the latter part of our October, and the former part of November; and of this sort, seem to be the flocks those shepherds were keeping by night, the time not being yet come, of their being brought into the city; from this it appears, that Christ must be born before the middle of October, since the first rain was not yet come.

The Rabbins teach, that these are they of the wilderness, or the fields, and these are they of the house; they of the field are they that go out on the Passover, and feed in the pastures, and come in at the first rain.
(From John Gill's Expositor for Luke 2:8)



I don't know this is very interesting. Oh and about the earlier comment...I had a brain fart.

What a nice little picture you have painted here, but there is a minor problem or two with it. Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, a.k.a. Quirinius, a.k.a. Cyrenius was governor of Syria twice; the first time was from 6 BCE to 4 BCE which does correspond with Herod. Unfortunately for your little scenario, there was no Roman ordered census during that period. Judah was an independent nation (albeit a protectorate) and the Romans could not and would not order an independent nation to conduct a census and there is no census recorded at that time. The second time Quirinius was Governor of Syria; Judah was a minor Roman province, which “danced to the Roman tune”. Consequently, as recorded by Josephus, there was a Roman census conducted in the year 6 CE! There’s one strike against your scenario. John the Baptist began his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius, which corresponds to 28 CE. Jesus began his ministry at the age of 30, after being baptized by John the Baptist. In 28 CE Jesus would have been 35 years old, if he had been born in 5 BCE! There’s strike two! There's a 11 year gap between Mattew and Luke. That's strike three. Looks like you and the Rev had better go back to the drawing board on that one, it sure doesn’t work. Sorry, no seegar, try again – the Grouchy Wolf

I can end this right now. The 25th of December. If I am wrong I don't think he is going to be happy that everyone has missed his birthday.

What would the implications be if he was found to be born in 200AD?

Oh you grouchy wolf you...Drat I will start again...See ya 101

101, don't sweat it, I have been working on the problem for several weeks now...have driven CD and Mako insane with it and still can't figure it out! - Grouchy Wolf

did they come up with the same answers or no? I feel like a goober. But it's okay. and so very interesting maybe we aren't meant to know.

Did this come from http://www.didyouknow.cd/history/year.htm ?

Nope and they finally chased me out of their office! I don't think that the Creator has any secrets that we are not meant to eventually know.


No, believe it or not, it came to me as I was researching a project (I work mainly with Far Eastern material, so don't ask me how it came up) and after I caught up I got to working on it.....needless to say, so far without success....Thanks for the link, I will check it out when I have time - Grouchy ole Wolf

Hey, no problem. There is some pretty good info on that site.

What year?! Go damn well look it up, I started to . Here's a few pointers, 33 years prior to an eclipse which occured on the 25th of March JULIAN Calendar which is the 23rd on our dating system (the day He died, an eclipse also occured and it was dated in Nicodemus as March 25th) on a Day which coincides with Passover. The Passover SEDAR was being done on Thursday (Passover ALWAYS starts on Nissan 15, so it must also coincide with that) and it was NOT as some people have assumed a day when Passover started on Friday (hence making the fast of the firstborn Thursday because what He was doing was the ACTUAL SEDAR), so therefore, Nissan 16 was actually His death day in the Jewish calendar, one day after Passover Sedar, but still Passover. Remember, after nightfall (sunset) is the start of a new day in the Hebrew calendar, and NOT morning.

So, as I started doing but didn't finnish, go look that up and count back 33 years, then, for the month, He was born in March-April making Him an Aries. There are sites which have eclipse dates for the past few thousand years. Now, look for total SOLAR eclipses. They occur during the day. Also, look for astrological alignments of outer planets which form conjunctions possibly with at least one personal planet. That would show the Star of Bethlehem.

My point to this? There's enough evidence from texts which are traceable to go looking. Last I checked the death date was in the year 34 A.D. which would make Jesus' birth year 1 A.D. But, tht was a quick skim over it, so I'll have to go through it again to really pinpoint when it was.

Oh, and that Eclipse has to occur at 15:00hrs, 3pm as stated by the texts.

First and foremost, please do not curse at me, I asked a question that had been bugging me and laid it out for a congenial discussion (much as 101 and Amalgamut provided). Now for my reply - I have looked it up and there was no eclipse in the 1st century CE that occurred at that particular time of the day and was visible in Jerusalem. The closest occurred in 33 CE, a partial eclipse of the moon, but it was not visible in Jerusalem and occurred before the moon was above the horizon in Palestine. The fact that Matthew and Luke have an 11 year gap between birth dates would say that there was no eclipse because they too could take the date of the eclipse and work backwards 33 years and they didn't. Or are you trying to say that these great "inspired by God" men wee too stupid to think of that? Sorry no seegar! - the very Grouchy Wolf (ain't had me coffee yet)

hi wolf

Maybe the roman records are crap

on the flip side of the coin, - maybe the Gospels are false, a scenario that is much more likely.

I should clarify my thinking. I used multiple sources for my contention. Some were Roman, some were Jewish and some were Xian...So even if the Roman records were crap, then the others still showed "fatal errors" in the birth date! - Grouchy Wolf

beowulf, i thought Varus was governor of Syria from 6BC-4BC, but it doesnt really matter for this discussion. Quirinius could have served in some other leadership position and it still fit with Luke.

could there have been an otherwise unrecorded census? would varus becoming governor of syria have warranted a census in his area of responsiblity?

This was my thought also, but I have read several sources recently (within the last year or so and can't off hand remember where) that there was evidence that Quirinius was Governor instead of Varus. As you said, it really (the first term) has no bearing on the subject.

Rest assured, a census (Roman censuses were only for the purpose of taxation) would have been recorded, along with the strife that went with trying to count and tax an independent nation. Varius would (I still think they were mistaken about Quirinius) have been the Governor of Syria, not Judea. Judea was an independent (albeit a protectorate of the Romans) nation, so even a census of Syria would not have been grounds for a census of Judea. Even so we are still stuck with the fact that a birth date in the time of Herod would not jibe with Jesus being about 30 when he was baptized by John....he would have been well over 30. As I said, this came to me while I was working on something else and has bugged the _____ outta me since then. This is one of those puzzles that you have trouble letting go of. I appreciate any help on it, as long as they are polite and in the manner of friendly discussion of what is possibly a historical event (earth changing even if you don't think it actually happened, like Mako). - the more friendly ole wolf that has finally had his morning fix of coffee - Beowulf

So have you come up with this info yet. I know you talked about it not being around 2 bc and stuff but does this make since. I mean it is really bugging me. awww.

The Gospels are problematic, because they offer two accounts that chronologists find incompatible. Matthew states that Jesus was born while Herod the Great was still alive and that Herod ordered the slaughter of infants two years old and younger (Matt. 2:16). However, the Jewish historian Josephus reports a lunar eclipse shortly before the death of Herod. Astronomers have pinpointed that eclipse to the year 4 BC, which would imply that Herod died in that year as well (contra Dionysius Exiguus). Thus, many chronologists conclude that the year 6 BC is the most likely year of Jesus' birth. Consequently, Jesus would have been about four to six years old in the year AD 1.

a missing census is the only idea i currently have to reconcile Jesus being born during a census, while Quirinius was some kind of leader in Syria, and while Herod was king. considering how close some of the literature we do have from the 1st century came to being lost, i would leave it in the realm of possiblity.
Judea did pay tribute to Rome, right? Would the Roman government in Syria have been responsible for collecting the tribute and ensuring the proper amount was paid.

as for the various dates in Luke, considering some cultural factors, i might give them a bit of a larger range than one would normally. to someone living in the near east, it may not have mattered what exact year of Tiberius' reign John started his ministry in or how old Jesus was when he started his ministry. exact details that dont really affect the substance of what happened or what was said probably would not have been remembered that well. im sure Luke was trying his best to get the most exact dates, but with around thirty years or so between him and the events he was recording and this indifference to reletively minor details of his sources, i wouldnt put too much weight in the dates.
thats just a guess, i havent really studied the relevant materials.

There was more than one Herod. Herod is just another name...like Caesar. Jesus was presented before Herod during his trials at the end of his life. Also, there could've also been a local census. Who knows. The bible doesn't give the day, month or year of his birth.

there was only one Herod, king of Judea. A few of his sons added Herod to their names after he died. one of them was the tetrarch of Galilee.

Yes^^^^

yes what?

are you just happy with the idea that he WAS born (as opposed to being a fictional character).....

Yes as in there was only one Herod that was king of judea.

whats your point?

just curious if you were questioning the existance of jesus and had found an answer (that made you happy).

Beowulf,

I wasn't cursing I was sarcastic as always lol, and I didn't say that year was the exact year. You have to match up the dates too, and Friday Nissan 16th which equals March 25th Julian with a 3pm total eclipse is what you should be looking for. I seriously doubt Jesus was born in A.D. I'd say more end of B.C..

I'm gong to keep looking it up myself, like I said before, I just skimmed over it. When I find the date, I'll bring it back here, and this thread will have an answer.

A lot of times when you look at history, dates aren't always exact. They are approximate. Back then, I'm pretty sure not very many people exactly when they were born. They weren't given birth certificates with exact dates on them. Most people probably knew they were born in the winter sometime or back during the census. I don't see the gospel writers putting in when Jesus was born during a time when it wasn't possible. If they made up the story of Jesus, then they wouldn't put in a wrong time or say it was during a person's reign when it really wasn't. In some cases, it might be an honest mistake on the historians or translations. The King James Version of the bible is not 100% fool proof. It is just a fallible humans VERSION of the word of God.

101 – sorry, I was away for the holiday – I can’t answer the riddle, that’s why I put it out for everyone.

Something Like Laughter -

Since Josephus informed us of the other census (6 CE) and since Josephus had this thing about how evil Herod the Great was, rest assured he would have mentioned the man caving and letting the Romans conduct a census of an independent nation! That’s two things that Josephus doesn’t mention when detailing ol’ HTG’s sins – a census and a “Slaughter of the Innocents”!



As near as I can find only after the death of HTG and Judea being declared a minor province



Sorry that is a cop out and as much as I would like to find a solution to this quandary, I can’t accept such a blow off. If anything, dates were much more important to the ancients than too us, especially during what the Jews considered an occupation by a foreign power!



Thirty years? You don’t even know when Jesus was born or died! This is what I mean about it being of the utmost importance that you know the date…..it ties the whole thing together! When Luke was written sometime between 90 and 115 CE, at least 58 years had passed (three generations by our count and almost two by the Jewish count), so any information the authors of Luke and Matthew (written around the same time) had was 3rd and 4th hand, but the dates would have been carved in stone to the Xians. Remember, they were expecting their lord to return in 40 years or less!



Saucy -

According to the Roman Historian Seneca, all male Jews were literate. It was a tenet of their religion and a fact that he (Seneca) found to be highly commendable. So you are saying that a literate male population would have no inkling of what year they were born, even though it was recorded in the Temple, along with the date of their circumcision? The very fact that Matthew (who was supposedly a Jew) could not access the temple records and ascertain the true birth date of Jesus is circumstantial evidence that Matthew was written after the destruction of the temple! Incidentally, the Latin and Greek bibles give the same lack of coordination. Now let’s quit playing games and really try to figure this out!

Careful there saucy. I know of at least one believer who will argue that it is foolproof, AND infallible.

Im assuming you mean me. And I do believe the KJV has some errors in terms of modern day translation.

The NIV is the best version out there.

A copy of a copy of a copy.........

--- but --- we --- must --- beleive ----

mr god would not let the great novel "sky tyrant and the threats of tomorrow" be mutated! he is all powerful, so surely he can oversee the editing of his novel!

so?
what are all those ancient histories like Tacitus and Josephus but copies of copies of copies?

religion is the home of the great game of manipulation!

even if only 1% of what religions say was true (based on external evidence), it is that 1% that they got right that would be promoted 100% of the time to give a false impression of accuracy.

we wonder where politicians learned their games? it it no wonder there is a co-relation between % of religious believers during a time and the turmoil of the time?

how does it go? -> people are idiots at heart, and religion is the best tool to bring it out.

True, but do they claim to be the infallible word of God? There is a big difference there! - Mako

I can just feel this thread evolving into a "prove the bible" thread.

It started out as "what year was Jesus born." Now, we are talking about the fallibilty of the bible.

maybe it does that for a reason?

maybe because people have so many doubts about the veracity of the bible?

maybe because the claims of the bible are so fantastically hard to believe? Especially when the very words of the book are, according to you, transitive and mean different things at different times.

Such as?

i seem to recall you adjusting words like "evil", "cud"; dates (is that 1 year or a 1000 years)....

edit: forgot my fav - in reference to the earth being created in "7 days" you said only the first 4 days refered to 1000 year periods, and then god made night and day so the final 3 were 24 hour days! it is always good when the definition changes mid-paragraph.

Lets see, a day = a day, except when it equals a thousand days ( or years).

evil = evil, except when it means trial, tribulation, or hardship.

"this generation" = ALL Hebrews, everywhere, till the end of time, amen.

God created everything, except for evil, even when it says HE said he did. So everything= everything, except where noted.

Yep. sane, consistant language usage.