DescentBB

You know that's interesting. You can predict meteor showers and eclipses so it would seem you could do that retroactively. If that were possible and you could prove on what day that eclipse happened, then you could almost conclusively say that was THE day that Jesus was crucified.

I'm actually confused about something else at the moment. We had said that Phlegon was first century and that his original record of the eclipse was surviving, but all of the research I can find now points to anything he wrote being second century and the only record I can find of him mentioning the eclipse is from a Christian historian Eusebius quoting him. Did I miss this before, or is there something I'm failing to find now?

edit: Ah, there was also Origen's quote of Phlegon, but this doesn't mention a date.

flip wrote:Couldn't have happened on the day Jesus was crucified, because that date is very consistent with Jewish custom and traditions.

You mean, assuming that the crucifixion/darkness happened on the day that was described in the New Testament.

No I'm saying that seems to be the scientific method. If I find several different historical documents attesting to an eclipse, with general consensus, and no opposition. Then can go back to that time and discover that there actually was an eclipse near that same time period, can I reasonably conclude that they are one and the same?

I don't know, but this might be a good place to start:
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SE0001-0100.html

Foil does a kick-ass job of splitting these topics.

Careful, I might have to split that comment into a new thread: "Moderators and Kick-Ass Thread Management [Thread Split]".


.
Back on topic, specifically the eclipse argument: I haven't read the details in the links you guys have posted, but I'm curious, how is the date from the scripture being established? As I recall (it's been a while), there is still some question about the exact years of N.T. events.

Foil wrote:tc, the crux of his question is really, "what value is there in the Bible if you don't take it 100% literally?" It's actually a bit odd to see that question from an atheist, because it's typically asked by young-earthers (they interpret through a hyper-literal lens).

As I said, it's been debated to death here before, but many Christians believe that interpreting the Bible as 100% literal is a huge mistake, that a strictly-literal interpretation can actually get you the wrong meaning. I'd personally say that interpretation is best done by keeping in mind the type of writing, cultural and textual context, etc.

I can't argue with that. But I'm going to start another thread based on one passage in the Bible and what's going on in modern politics.

Oh, the joys of being a daddy... I missed this thread when it was live! Oh well.

Foil wrote:many Christians believe that interpreting the Bible as 100% literal is a huge mistake, that a strictly-literal interpretation can actually get you the wrong meaning. I'd personally say that interpretation is best done by keeping in mind the type of writing, cultural and textual context, etc.

Absolutely correct.

The goal is to understand what the original author was trying to communicate, which may be poetic or figurative. We don't seem to have trouble with that when Jesus says "I am the door"; we connect it easily to the story he was just telling about robbers entering the sheepfold by climbing the wall but the legitimate shepherd entering through the door. Nobody sits there wondering if Jesus is rectangular and attached by hinges, because we recognize the lesson he's trying to figuratively communicate.

When it comes to the first chapter of Genesis, we're missing some very important historical/cultural background and therefore we fail to make the proper connection. Genesis is called the first "book of Moses", and tradition says it was written by Moses during the time of the Exodus. Moses grew up in Egypt; so did his audience. They were all familiar with the Egyptian creation story, but we are not, so we miss the references. When you read through that story it's clear that Moses is referencing it time and time again in the Genesis account -- explicitly contradicting it, and even insulting the Egyptian gods. It's not meant to be a history, it's meant to be a counterpoint -- "you think the sun and moon are gods, but they're just created objects that I'm not even going to bother giving explicit names to in this story because they're just not that important."

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

When it comes to Biblical prophecy, I think the key principle to remember is that it's usually neither fortunetelling nor proof for unbelievers; it's instead a way to attach teaching to a specific event for believers. It's typically described clearly enough so that once the event happens you'll recognize it, but won't be able to guess it beforehand; you're not expected to be able to go to someone else and say "the prophecy says that on such-and-such date such-and-such event will happen" and force them to admit you knew the future. You're also not expected to be able to specifically plan for the event; the teachings are usually about how you should respond ("turn from your sins" is a common one), rather than about how you should plan beforehand. There are a few exceptions, such as Daniel's dream interpretations, but most prophecy is of the form "this thing I'm figuratively describing will happen, and when it does, you should do this other thing."

Lothar wrote:Oh, the joys of being a daddy... I missed this thread when it was live! Oh well.

Not sure if you posted and I missed it, but Grats either way!

Gooberman wrote:

Lothar wrote:Oh, the joys of being a daddy... I missed this thread when it was live! Oh well.

Not sure if you posted and I missed it, but Grats either way!

Thanks. (I don't blame you for missing the post in the Christmas 2009 thread.)