Nebuchadnezzar

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'd have to look into the details, but that was the best response knight.

[KnightofChrist]

Another thing to consider, would be the Roman empire. After the fall of the western part of it the eastern part lived on, and they called themselves Roman, and whatever they called the Roman Empire, was still the same. It was future historians that [i]changed[/i] the naming.

[dairygirl4u2c]

thanks again knight. this is why i like posting at this site, knowledgable believers, amoung other reasons.

you might want to send that to catholic.com so they can get this sh*t together as i found nothing good there.

i only asked cause a prot i know used it to justify not being catholic. amount other things of course, but that was the only legit point he had brought up.

[dairygirl4u2c]

thanks again knight. this is why i like posting at this site, knowledgable believers, amoung other reasons.

you might want to send that to catholic.com so they can get this sh*t together as i found nothing good there.

i only asked cause a prot i know used it to justify not being catholic. amount other things of course, but that was the only legit point he had brought up.

[thessalonian]

Hey, Knight that's a very good answer that I haven't heard before. Thanks for posting this dairy as it has come up for me recently and I was looking for an answer.

Blessings

[thessalonian]

Personally I find the bible to be VERY historically accurate and have my doudts that there are any historical errors in it. This passage was bothersome but the theories sited have only confirmed that there are possible explanations for ALL bible contradictions and that there may be one for other "contradictions" but we haven't been exposed to it. Again no individual explanation has to be true. They just need to show that there are possible explanations for the "contradictions".

[thessalonian]

When you consider this "possibility" that Nebuchandnezzar was in fact King of Assyria due to it's earlier conquering by his father it makes even more sense considering that we see in the NT how Herod was the king of the Jews, yet we see later in John 19 that it says "we have no king but ceaser". Was ceaser their king? Most certainly because rome had conquered Israel. Yet they still called herod the king. Now if one or the other of these passages had been left out would we have a contradiction? Nope. We would just have an incomplete picture of history in the Bible. So what. Some Protestants tend to abuse the Bible by making it out to be some complete history of Jesus and the Apostles, making claims like Peter was never in Rome. Sad. Yet they jump on the bandwagon when secular history supports the Bible. But where the Bible is silent they ignore what secular history has to say, at least with regard to the Catholic Church.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1507774' date='Apr 23 2008, 07:37 PM']Personally I find the bible to be VERY historically accurate and have my doudts that there are any historical errors in it. This passage was bothersome but the theories sited have only confirmed that there are possible explanations for ALL bible contradictions and that there may be one for other "contradictions" but we haven't been exposed to it. Again no individual explanation has to be true. They just need to show that there are possible explanations for the "contradictions".[/quote]

True dat.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1505251' date='Apr 20 2008, 11:41 PM']Baruch 6:2, "And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace."
The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians.1

Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. "And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."[/quote]


To begin with 70 yrs may mean about or around 70 yrs, the same could be true for generations. But, this is so easy, I don't know why I missed it last time,[url="http://www.newadvent.org/bible/bar006.htm"] [u]seven generations [b]is[/b] seventy years[/u][/url]. And when we remember people had children at younger ages than we do now, such as 13, 14 it is entirely possible that in 70 yrs there could have been seven generations of families. Also another thing to think of when the Old Testament speaks of "years" it is not speaking of the Gregorian calendar. I believe most certainly it uses a Hebrew calendar, which at least now can have up to 13 months. I believe in those times, new months where determined by observation of the moon first appearance after a new moon by at least two independent eyewitnesses. Then they would tell the "Sanhedrin", who would then would declare the being of the month and send out messengers to tell the people. And if I'm not mistaken, leap years happened much more often in the Hebrew calendar, than the Gregorian.


And also theres this from [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_calendar#Structure"]Wiki[/url]

[quote]Biblical references to the pre-Jewish calendar include ten months identified by number rather than by name. In parts of the Torah portion Noach (Noah) (specifically, Gen 7:11, Gen 8:4-5, Gen 8:13-14) it is implied that the months are thirty days long.[10] There is no indication as to the total number of months in the annual cycle.

In the parts of the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) prior to the Babylonian exile, only four months are named: Aviv (first; literally "spring", which originally probably meant "the ripening of barley"), Ziv (second; literally "light"), Ethanim (literally "strong" in plural, perhaps referring to strong rains) I Kings 6:38: seventh month; and Bul I Kings 6:38: eighth month. All of these are Canaanite names, and at least two are Phoenician (Northern Canaanite).

According to the Book of Exodus, the first commandment the Jewish people received as a nation was to determine the new moon: Exodus 12:2 states, "This month [Nisan] is for you the first of months." Deut 16:1 refers to a specific month: "Observe the month of Aviv (HE: spring), and keep the passover unto the LORD thy God; for in the month of Aviv the LORD thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night."

During the Babylonian exile, which started in 586 BCE, Jews adopted Babylonian names for the months, which are still in use. The Babylonian calendar also used a lunisolar calendar, derived from the Sumerian calendar.

Hebrew names and romanized transliteration may somewhat differ, as they do for כסלו / Kislev or חשוון / Marheshvan: the Hebrew words shown here are those commonly indicated e.g. in newspapers.[/quote]

So that helps explain that... I think anyway...

Edited April 24, 2008 by KnightofChrist