The Incredible odds of fulfilled bible prophecy

[godless dave]

I see:
Bible makes prediction
Bible says prediction was fullfilled
No outside source exists verifying the fullfillment of prediction.

This happens a bunch of times in the bible.

So Jesus is the son of god?

There's a lot of predictions made in the Lord of the Rings that came true in the Lord of the Rings, Does that make the Lord of the Rings real?

Yes. Gandalf predicted in "Shadow of the Past" (Chapter 2 I think) that Gollum would still have a part to play. Near the end of the book, Gollum destroyed the Ring when Frodo failed to do so.

Probability of happening by chance: 1 in 487.

 

[godless dave]

I wonder what the probability was that Lou Gehrig would get Lou Gehrig's disease?

 

[godless dave]

The speculation or opinion that you have to be stupid to believe that the rulers of the day would send you to the city of your lineage for a census or taxation.

The complete lack of such a practice in any Roman records.

 

[H3LL]

Coo!

More Lies For Jesus with the cunning use of logical fallacies.

How does DOC do it?

DOC - Why do you keep using logical fallacies in almost every post?

Why have you never answered?

 

[DOC]

Oops; since DOC's link says the following, you've just destroyed the credibility of the whole bible:

Not really. All the Caesars after Caesar Augustus were referred to as Caesar and Augustus.

From Wiki's article on Augustus:

His names Augustus and Caesar were adopted by every subsequent emperor, and the month of Sextilis was officially renamed August in his honour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Ceasar

So the fact that he died in 14AD is not relevant. One could easily see how someone in Palestine was confused by all the Caesar Augustuses in an era where the only communication comes by ship or horseback.

And just for the record Luke in the King James does not use the word census as the international version does. it uses the word taxation.

 

[DOC]

Oh my. The last thing you should have brought up was the census.

*All biblical citations are from the New International Version at www.biblegateway.com
**Sources will be linked to at the end of this post



Let’s break this down into its main claims:

1. Ceasar Augustus declared that ALL of the roman world should be counted
2. This is the first Census while Quirinius was governor of Syria
3. Everyone was required to go to "his town" to register. Joseph is of the House of David "and therefore required to go to Bethlehem as it is the home of David. This indicates the census was conducted based on Jewish tribal affiliation.
4. Joseph is from Galilee

Now let’s look at the actual facts:

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

1. At no time did Ceasar Augustus declare that the entire Roman empire should be counted. Augustus came into power on January 16, 27 BC and reigned for forty years dying on August 19, AD 14. Three Census' were performed at his command during his reign and counted Roman citizens only.

* In 28 BC the citizen population was 4,063,000 (including both men and women)
* In 8 BC - 4,233,000
* In AD 14 - 4,937,000

The population at around 4,000,000 seems very small but estimates put the world population that time at somewhere over 200,000,000 putting Romans at about 2-3% of the world population.

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

2. Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governer of Syria in 6 AD and performed a census of the new Roman provinces of Syria and Iudaea for the purpose of taxation in 6/7 AD. Iudaea province was formed in 6 AD by combining Judea with Samaria and Idumea. It did not include the surrounding separate provinces of Galilee, Gaulanitis (the Golan), Peraea or the Decapolis. The capital was at Caesarea.

So now we see some more problems. Though the bible is correct in naming Quirinius as governor of Syria. He did perform a census it was not covering the entire Roman Empire as the bible claims. It covered only the provinces of Syria and Iudaea. It did NOT include the province of Galilee where Joseph and Mary came from and so not only were they exempt from taking part in the census they would not have been permitted to take part even if they wanted to (that would be like me as a Canadian trying to take part in a New York city Census).

2a. This claim comes with a bonus debunking as well! We know that Quirinius became governor in 6 AD. Well remember Herod the Great? He is the one who killed all the babies after Jesus was born (which was during the census)



Well… He died in 4 BC. A full 10 years BEFORE the census during which Jesus was supposed to be born. Isn’t history great?

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

3. It states that “And everyone went to his own town to register”. And that Joseph had to go to Bethlehem as he was from the House of David (notice it does NOT say it was his home town or his father’s home town). As stated above this indicates the census was conducted based on Jewish tribal affiliation. Roman Census’ were not conducted based on local custom but the entire local taxable population. The census was actually conducted for the purpose of properly levying and enforcing taxes.

Also there are 12 tribes of Israel. That means if everyone had to return to the town his tribe originated from then the ENTIRE population of Israel would abandon most of the towns and return en masse to a total of 12 locations. This would not only be ruinous to the abandoned towns but also to the ones where everyone went. No census could possibly be conducted in such a fashion.

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

4. Was Joseph from Galilee? There is no extrabiblical evidence for it but ALL of the gospels agree that is where he was from. As already stated above Galilee was not included in the census. Joseph would not have taken part.

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

So not only is no prophecy fulfilled, your book is shown to be very inaccurate historically and impossible from a social/economic stand point. I look forward to your rebuttal and hope that you provide some compelling information rather than made up numbers and a made up book. Everyone please feel free to comment, let me know if I have missed anything or left anything else out.

Source Links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iudaea_Province
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Ceasar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
http://www.unrv.com/empire/roman-population.php
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 2:1-4;&version=31;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mathew 2:16;&version=31;

As I stated in another post the subsequent emperors were also referred to as Augustus and Caesar. So it is very possible that Luke was referring to the Augustus Caesar "of the month" so to say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Ceasar

Also for some reason your international version of the Bible uses the word "census" instead of "taxation" which would make one or more of your assertions false

Also why did you put all the sources together at the end instead of immediately following the assertion. This makes verifying much more difficult. It would have been much more clearer and polite for everyone, not just me, to examine.

 

[SezMe]

Probability of happening by chance: 1 in 487.

You're so utterly wrong, Dave. It's 1 in 488. You putz.

 

[zooterkin]

As I stated in another post the subsequent emperors were also referred to as Augustus and Caesar. So it is very possible that Luke was referring to the Augustus Caesar "of the month" so to say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Ceasar

Why would the bible be referring to any Caesar apart from the one in power at the time Jesus supposedly was born?

Not to mention the fact that you've completely missed the point that there wasn't any such census or taxation anywhen which required everyone to return to his ancestral home.

 

[DOC]

At no time did Ceasar Augustus declare that the entire Roman empire should be counted.

That's why the King James Version (Luke) says "taxed" and not "counted".


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

So now we see some more problems. Though the bible is correct in naming Quirinius as governor of Syria. He did perform a census it was not covering the entire Roman Empire as the bible claims.

Nowhere in the King James Version does it claim this.

It covered only the provinces of Syria and Iudaea. It did NOT include the province of Galilee where Joseph and Mary came from and so not only were they exempt from taking part in the census they would not have been permitted to take part even if they wanted to (that would be like me as a Canadian trying to take part in a New York city Census).

Nowhere does it say it [the taxing] covered only the provinces of Syria and Judaea. It says in Luke 2:2 :

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Luk 2:2 ([And] this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

It just says the taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. There is a difference between saying something first happened somewhere and that it only happened somewhere.

 

[zooterkin]

Nowhere does it say it [the taxing] covered only the provinces of Syria and Judaea. It says in Luke 2:2 :

That's the whole point; the bible says:

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.

yet the evidence is that no such thing occurred.

 

[zooterkin]

Luk 2:2 ([And] this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

It just says the taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. There is a difference between saying something first happened somewhere and that it only happened somewhere.

And it's been established, above, that

Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governer of Syria in 6 AD

So, are you putting Jesus' birth in 6AD or later?

 

[DOC]

Not to mention the fact that you've completely missed the point that there wasn't any such census or taxation anywhen which required everyone to return to his ancestral home.

There is no evidence for that. But there is plenty of evidence that the Roman Empire taxed the people of the area. And why would Luke make this all up (about taxation) in a letter to his friend, which subsequently became the Gospel of Luke.

 

[Nogbad]

Actually Dr. Ross does state that God is not the only one who uses prophecy:

from the "Fulfilled Prophecy" article mentioned earlier:

"God is not the only one, however, who uses forecasts of future events to get people's attention. Satan does, too. Through clairvoyants (such as Jeanne Dixon and Edgar Cayce), mediums, spiritists, and others, come remarkable predictions, though rarely with more than about 60 percent accuracy, never with total accuracy. Messages from Satan, furthermore, fail to match the detail of Bible prophecies, nor do they include a call to repentance."

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/prophecy.shtml

For the love of heck! Nostradamus and ilk are moveable feasts and people read into them what they will. People pour over past events and make stuff fit - a bit like Homer with a jigsaw puzzle and sissors. I would seriously dispute the 60% figure - more like 0.6%

Useful prophecy is pretty thin on the ground - for example the Indonesian tsunami. A heads up on that would have been nice.

With regard Biblical prophecy, it is clear from the wording that the person writing Revelation was talking about current or imminent events - not thousands of years into the future. Given that the Gospels were written 40 to 70 years after Jesus's death there was also ample time to shoehorn in phrophetic fits - again these are often pointed out in the text when a seemingly random bit of information is included and followed with "this was to fulfill prophecy". It stands to reason that there will be a correlation between sets of texts if the latter, mindful of the former, is attempting to show that the former has been proved.

 

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC

Luk 2:2 ([And] this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

It just says the taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. There is a difference between saying something first happened somewhere and that it only happened somewhere.

-----------

And it's been established, above, that
Quote:
Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governer of Syria in 6 AD

So, are you putting Jesus' birth in 6AD or later?

Not really, it just says the taxing was "first made" during sometime in the reign of Cyrenius.

 

[H3LL]

And why would Luke make this all up (about taxation) in a letter to his friend, which subsequently became the Gospel of Luke.

Because he's a liar?

Early Lies For Jesus... You gotta start somewhere.

.

 

[Hawk one]

DOC, is it really that impossible for you to fathom that anyone calling themselves Christian are still capable of lying?

 

[zooterkin]

Not really, it just says the taxing was "first made" during sometime in the reign of Cyrenius.

What do you mean, 'not really'? If the taxation was first made in the reign of Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, and he was appointed in 6AD, how could the birth of Jesus be any earlier than that, assuming you believe the taxation story?

 

[H3LL]

DOC, is it really that impossible for you to fathom that anyone calling themselves Christian are still capable of lying?

Surely anyone calling themselves Christian and describing the bible as an accurate historical record has no choice other than to be a liar.

Heck, it's not even internally consistent. With multiple versions of the same story one, more or all of the versions must be a lie.

Where did the eleven disciples first meet dead Jesus again? On a mountain top in Galilee or in a room in Jerusalem?

I have 300+ other ones if DOC has the time?
.

 

[Nogbad]

What do you mean, 'not really'? If the taxation was first made in the reign of Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, and he was appointed in 6AD, how could the birth of Jesus be any earlier than that, assuming you believe the taxation story?

Whereas Herod the Great died in 4BC.

 

[zooterkin]

There is no evidence for that.

Then why do you keep mentioning it?

But there is plenty of evidence that the Roman Empire taxed the people of the area.

But not the area where Joseph was living (Galillee).

And why would Luke make this all up (about taxation) in a letter to his friend, which subsequently became the Gospel of Luke.

Because he somehow had to place the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem in order to 'fulfil' the prophecy?