Luke 2:2 Geisler

From Errancy Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Dr. Norman Geisler Possibly presents a Defense here:

Alleged Errors in Luke

In the main part of the article Geisler lists the following Possible Defenses:

1) The word translated "first" could be translated "before".

2) Quirinius may have been Governor of Syria twice.

3) There may have been a census between 10-5 BCE.

In his related Conclusion Geisler gives 3 reasons to Believe that "Luke" is accurate:

1) "Luke's" account must be assumed correct until proven incorrect.

JW: I Believe that Geisler is now at the intersection of Faith and Blind begging for questions.

2) There are "plausible" explanations which harmonize "Luke" with History.

JW: There are also Probable explanations which contradict "Luke" with history.

3) "Luke" in General is a reliable historian.

JW: If we Ignore the Virgin Birth, the miracle healings, the resurrection, copying from "Mark" without attribution and Editing "Mark" for theological reasons.

This combination of Possible excuses and ridiculous conclusions earns our best known Apologist so far a well deserved spot near the botton of our list. But you just can't beat Jones' conclusion that "Luke's" account is so Unbelievable, it's Believable.

--JoeWallack 09:34, 14 Aug 2006 (CDT)