Hugh Hefner is now in hell

[Mountain Man]

Did you read the Miller essay before you cited it as a "comprehensive study"?

Of course I did. I mean, OK, you can nitpick over the fact that part three was never completed -- and you are, after all, the king of nitpicking -- but the first two parts have more than enough facts and data to support the conclusion that Luke's history was bang-on accurate with regards to who conducted the census and when.

[One Bad Pig]

That sounds like Hugh Hefner to me.

Seems like you (whether deliberately or no) missed DE's humor, in response to Zym's humor.

[Roy]

Of course I did. I mean, OK, you can nitpick over the fact that part three was never completed -- and you are, after all, the king of nitpicking -- but the first two parts have more than enough facts and data to support the conclusion that Luke's history was bang-on accurate with regards to who conducted the census and when.

I don't believe you read it. I think you just Googled for an article on the census and posted a link without noticing it was incomplete.

But if you did read it:

Why did you describe it as a "comprehensive study" when you knew it only covered two-thirds of the topic?

Why did you then quote a reconciliation theory (that Quirinius was a governor of Syria before 6AD) that is not only different from those favoured in Miller's study,* but that Miller explicitly rejected?**

Why did you say Adrift's idea that Herod died later showed that the Bible got it right when it showed nothing of the sort?

And, most importantly, how can you say that it contains "enough facts and data to support the conclusion that Luke's history was bang-on accurate with regards to who conducted the census and when" when not only does it say that Luke's meaning is unclear, but you haven't said when the census was?

You earlier complained about skeptics who propose multiple contradictory scenarios for the empty tomb, yet here you are doing exactly the same thing for the Lukan census. Your claim that the bible has passed with flying colours when tested on historical points is in tatters. You're toast. Checkmated. Time for you to scatter the pawns and defecate on KR3.

------
* Namely
1) That Luke meant a different census before the census taken by Quirinius in 6-7AD;
2) That Luke meant the census was completed in 6AD, when Quirinius was governor of Syria, but which used data gathered earlier.

**"I should mention that there is also a possibility that Q-over-S occurred once in 4-1BC, and only later in the 6-7AD timeframe. This position was articulated by Sherwin-White, since we have a gap in our knowledge of Syrian leadership from 4-1BC, but such an earlier governorship by Q would provide even less connection between it and the enrollment policy/decree of Augustus than would the hated census in 6-7. In the 4-1 BC period, we would have Jesus in Egypt and then Nazareth, prior to the consolidation of Herod's territory under Roman rule in 6-7 AD."

[Mountain Man]

I don't believe you read it.

You can believe whatever you like.

Your claim that the bible has passed with flying colours when tested on historical points is in tatters. You're toast. Checkmated.

Hardly. First of all, you might want to get my actual assertion correct: "In broader terms, the historical case for Biblical theism lies in the fact that on every historical point on which the Bible can and has been tested, it has passed with flying colors." My wording here was, as it always is, very precise and deliberately left open the possibility that there are historical points on which the Bible can't be tested for one reason or another, for instance, cases where the data is incomplete, such as the Lukan census which has a number of plausible solutions but is, at worst, untestable due to a lack of conclusive evidence.

Concerning Miller's essay, he covers a lot of ground, but don't let that stop you from cherry picking the one or two isolated points you think support your argument.

[Roy]

Hardly. First of all, you might want to get my actual assertion correct: "In broader terms, the historical case for Biblical theism lies in the fact that on every historical point on which the Bible can and has been tested, it has passed with flying colors." My wording here was, as it always is, very precise

So you were being very precise when you described an incomplete draft as a "comprehensive study".

... and deliberately left open the possibility that there are historical points on which the Bible can't be tested for one reason or another, for instance, cases where the data is incomplete, such as the Lukan census which has a number of plausible solutions but is, at worst, untestable due to a lack of conclusive evidence.

It is testable. It has been tested, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to link to those apologetics sites. You could say that the results of testing it were inconclusive due to a lack of evidence, but it definitely isn't untestable - and it's mighty suspicious that you've decided it's untestable only after being shown it didn't pass the testing. If you really thought it was untestable you could have said so straight away, rather than linking to a site that tested it.

It's even more suspicious that you claim it to be untestable immediately after writing "enough facts and data to support the conclusion that Luke's history was bang-on accurate with regards to who conducted the census and when." How can the Lukan census be both untestable and bang-on accurate?

You're flailing around like an incontinent pigeon.

Concerning Miller's essay, he covers a lot of ground, but don't let that stop you from cherry picking the one or two isolated points you think support your argument.

Crapping on QB3 again. I'm not cherry-picking. That's an unsubstantiated assertion by you that's not worth addressing beyond noting that you haven't supported it.

But it does highlight that I am actually discussing the contents of the study, whereas you have made no reference to them at all. There's nothing in your posts to indicate you've read a single word of Miller's essay.

The Lukan census is a historical point on which the bible can and has been tested, and it has not passed with flying colours. Your claim that it is untestable is directly contradicted by your earlier claim that it is "bang-on accurate". Your argument is refuted, and your case for Biblical theism dies with it.

[Darth Executor]

72 virgins, perhaps?

72 chads

[Tassman]

72 chads

Whatever turns you on!

[Roy]

Lots of activity by Mountain Man elsewhere, but none here.

I doubt we'll ever find out how there can be both sufficient and insufficient data to confirm Luke's account of the census.

[Mountain Man]

Look, kiddo, a debate has to end at some point, and I have enough confidence in my arguments to let this matter rest.

It would seem you can't say the same.

[Roy]

I doubt we'll ever find out how there can be both sufficient and insufficient data to confirm Luke's account of the census.

Look, kiddo, a debate has to end at some point, and I have enough confidence in my arguments to let this matter rest.

It would seem you can't say the same.

So you've got confidence in your contradictory arguments

[Charles]

So you've got confidence in your contradictory arguments

That sure is a good laugh.

[Mountain Man]

I just noticed Roy's signature. Isn't it amazing how one can force a contradiction when they take things out of context?

That's the sort of dishonesty I would expect from you.

Look...

"[Glenn Miller's essay] has more than enough facts and data to support the conclusion that Luke's history was bang-on accurate with regards to who conducted the census and when."

"...there are historical points on which the Bible can't be tested for one reason or another, for instance, cases where the data is incomplete, such as the Lukan census which has a number of plausible solutions but is, at worst, untestable due to a lack of conclusive evidence."

These statements are not in any way contradictory, and if you think you are, then I dare you to use the above fuller quotes in your signature along with a link to the relevant posts so that people can see the full context for themselves. The way you've presented the quotes is deceptive.

[Roy]

I just noticed Roy's signature. Isn't it amazing how one can force a contradiction when they take things out of context?

That's the sort of dishonesty I would expect from you.

Look...

"[Glenn Miller's essay] has more than enough facts and data to support the conclusion that Luke's history was bang-on accurate with regards to who conducted the census and when."

"...there are historical points on which the Bible can't be tested for one reason or another, for instance, cases where the data is incomplete, such as the Lukan census which has a number of plausible solutions but is, at worst, untestable due to a lack of conclusive evidence."

These statements are not in any way contradictory, and if you think you are, then I dare you to use the above quotes in your signature along with a link to the relevant posts so that people can see the full context for themselves. The way you've presented the quotes is deceptive.

Excellent idea. Links added to signature.

I await your explanation as to how the data regarding the census mentioned by Luke is both sufficient to show that Luke's account is "bang-on accurate" and incomplete to the point that Luke's account is untestable.

Luke's account of the census is either testable or untestable. You say it is both. That's a direct contradiction.

[Mountain Man]

Excellent idea. Links added to signature.

I await your explanation as to how the data regarding the census mentioned by Luke is both sufficient to show that Luke's account is "bang-on accurate" and incomplete to the point that Luke's account is untestable.

Luke's account of the census is either testable or untestable. You say it is both. That's a direct contradiction.

I see you don't have the guts to include the fuller quotes in your signature. Go ahead, change it to this, I dare you:

"[Glenn Miller's essay] has more than enough facts and data to support the conclusion that Luke's history was bang-on accurate with regards to who conducted the census and when."

"...there are historical points on which the Bible can't be tested for one reason or another, for instance, cases where the data is incomplete, such as the Lukan census which has a number of plausible solutions but is, at worst, untestable due to a lack of conclusive evidence."

How are these not a contradiction? Very simple. Let's combine the two statements:

"[Glenn Miller's essay] has more than enough facts and data to support the conclusion that Luke's history was bang-on accurate with regards to who conducted the census and when; [however, it could be argued that it] is, at worst, untestable due to a lack of conclusive evidence."

[Roy]

I see you don't have the guts to include the fuller quotes in your signature. Go ahead, change it to this, I dare you:

Sure, no problem. Done. It makes no difference.

How are these not a contradiction? Very simple. Let's combine the two statements:

"[Glenn Miller's essay] has more than enough facts and data to support the conclusion that Luke's history was bang-on accurate with regards to who conducted the census and when; [however, it could be argued that it] is, at worst, untestable due to a lack of conclusive evidence."

That's nice. Of course, adding the "it could be argued that" clause, which was in no way present in your original statement, misrepresents your position as being that some-one else might say Luke's account was untestable, or that there's an alternative position you didn't present, when it was actually you that said it. Disagreement is not the same as contradiction.

Oh, and you still haven't said when the census was or who conducted it, without which information your conclusion about Luke's history being "bang-on accurate with regards to who conducted the census and when" is wishful thinking.