King Herod - Year of death: either 4 BCE, or 5 BCE, 1 BCE, 1 CEMost scholarship concerning the date of Herod's death follows Emil Schürer's calculations, which suggest that the date was in or around 4 BCE; this is three years earlier than the previous consensus and tradition (1 BCE). Two of Herod's sons, Archelaus and Philip the Tetrarch, dated their rule from 4 BCE, though Archelaus apparently held royal authority during Herod's lifetime.[78] Philip's reign would last for 37 years, until his death in the 20th year of Tiberius (34 CE), which implies his accession as 4 BCE.
Some scholars support the traditional date of 1 BCE for Herod's death. Yet others support 1 CE for the probable date of Herod's death. Filmer and Steinmann, for example, propose that Herod died in 1 BCE, and that his heirs backdated their reigns to 4 or 3 BCE to assert an overlapping with Herod's rule, and bolster their own legitimacy.
In Josephus' account, Herod's death was preceded by a lunar eclipse and followed by Passover. A partial eclipse best observed from the west coast of Africa, took place on March 13, 4 BCE, about 29 days before Passover. Whilst this eclipse has been suggested as the one referred to by Josephus, there were other eclipses during this period, with proponents of 5 BCE and the two eclipses of 1 BCE occurring January 10, being the most spectacular total lunar eclipse and December 29, another only partial eclipse.
Upon Herod’s deathAugustus respected the terms of Herod's will, which stipulated the division of Herod's kingdom among three of his sons. Augustus recognised Herod's son Herod Archelaus as ethnarch of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea to 6 CE, referred to as the tetrarchy of Judea. Augustus then judged Archelaus incompetent to rule, removed him from power, and combined the provinces of Samaria, Judea proper, and Idumea into Iudaea province.
Herod Archelaus (Ancient Greek: Ἡρῴδης Ἀρχέλαος, Hērōidēs Archelaos; 23 BC – c. AD 18) was ethnarch of Samaria, Judea, and Idumea, including the cities Caesarea and Jaffa, for a period of nine years[3] (c. 4 BC to AD 6). Archelaus was removed by Roman Emperor Augustus when Judaea province was formed under direct Roman rule, at the time of the Census of Quirinius.
After you finish discounting all of History from the WEST – then you can start on the EAST(google) Showing results for when was the star of BethlehemApril 24, 4 BC
The date is equivalent to April 24, 4 BC. This identifies the date when it was first observed in China. It was also recorded in Korea. "In the fifty-fourth year of Hyokkose Wang, in the spring, second month, day chi-yu, a po-hsing appeared at Hoku" (Samguk Sagi, The Historical Record of the Three Kingdoms).
In the spring – near the time of Passover to be a yearlingAfter you have refuted all the secular evidence – now deny scriptureyoutu.be/R7REzEJGJtMWhat is the Star of Bethlehem?
When was the star of Bethlehem?
Were there 3 Magi – NO – it was an entire Caravan that reported to the King first and foremost
Why did Magi come – who are the Magi – and whose treasure did the Magi give to Jesus
Daniel was the chief Magi – 70 weeks earlier – the Magi are Daniel’s astronomers – and it was Daniel’s treasure that was given to Jesus
Did the Magi come at the birth of Jesus – NO
Jesus could have been up to 2 years old at the time
When the Magi returned home – Jesus and Mary left for Egypt with their treasur to pay the way – and male children were slaughtered by King HerodSorry Robert –
Luk 2:2 This was the first census taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria.
Is a Bastard text – it is not true – it is a factual errorHow can this happen if God’s Word is inspired?
The answer is easy – through human edit – deliberate – accidental – bias – and human errorThe Gospel of Luke – was 100% inspired as originally written – no one has thatAn Important and Relevant Textual Variant in Luke 2
So, by way of background for anyone new to this kind of discussion. We don’t have the original copy of Luke’s Gospel (or of any other NT book) (or, actually, of any book at all from the ancient world!). What we have are copies made from copies made from copies that were made from copies. We have thousands of copies of the NT from the centuries before the invention of printing. And these thousands of copies have hundreds of thousands of differences among themselves, in how they word this, that, or the other passage. MOST of these differences – the vast majority – are insignificant, immaterial, and matter for nothing more than to show that ancient scribes could spell no better than people can today. But some of the differences actually matter, changing the meaning of a passage in a significant way.The Gospel of Luke – was 100% inspired as originally written – no one has thatBible Translation, MethodsJust yesterday a reader named Scott, from Salt Lake City, Utah, wrote me with a question that offers a helpful launch point for this blog post. A fan of the NLT translation (which I have done work on), Scott has “a KJV enthusiast friend” who challenged him to take a look at Mark 6:11, which he did. This is how Scott’s email to me continued:
The King James Version presents Mark 6:11 thusly (emphasis added):
“And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”
The New Living Translation presents it like this with no textual notes at all:
“But if any place refuses to welcome you or listen to you, shake its dust from your feet as you leave to show that you have abandoned those people to their fate.”
As you can see and are probably already aware, the NLT omits half the verse compared to the KJV. The omission, from where I sit, is glaring and anything but insignificant. Interestingly, the NASB (Updated Edition), supposedly the "most literal" English translation available, agrees with the NLT, also without footnotes.
So I'm confused. Can you tell me why the second half of the verse as presented in the KJV has been omitted from the NLT without any footnote explanation???
Very good question, Scott. Let me see if I can give a basic overview of the reasons we do not have that part of the verse in modern versions. My answer will be in line with the vast majority of New Testament scholars in the world, both evangelical and otherwise. There are those who disagree, of course, but I think the evidence for holding that Mark did not write that second part of the verse is very compelling. See if you agree.
1. We now have access to thousands more manuscripts than were available to the translators of the KJV.
Throughout the first 1000 years of the Church and after, copies were made of the 27 “books” of our New Testament. For example, since Paul’s letter to the Romans was valued greatly, it was copied over and again and eventually taken to other parts of the Mediterranean world so that believers in places like Alexandria, Ephesus, and the Holy Land could have access to his teaching in letter form. As the letter spread widely throughout the Mediterranean world, this actually helped preserve the letter. Scribes (people who were trained in reading, writing, and the copying of manuscripts) made copies, and at times errors crept in; the vast, vast majority of these are minor (for example, spelling mistakes, changes in word order, skipping a word or phrase, and harmonizations with parallel passages), but since lots of other copies were being made throughout the rest of the Mediterranean world, the “original” form as Paul wrote it was preserved. The scholarly work that we call “Textual Criticism” (“criticism” in the sense of thoughtful study rather than being “critical” of something) has to do with isolating the original form of our books of the Bible and ferreting out those scribal errors.
georgehguthrie.com/new-blog/manuscripts-behind-the-kjvToday we have around 5,800 Greek manuscripts of all or parts of the New Testament, and they come from various regions of the ancient world. Since, beginning in the 2nd Century, the Greek books of the New Testament started being translated into other languages, we also have tens of thousands of manuscripts in languages such as Latin, Coptic, and Syriac. In short, we have an amazing wealth of manuscript evidence for the New Testament,
(wiki)
Textual variants in the New Testament manuscripts arise when a copyist makes deliberate or inadvertent alterations to the text that is being reproduced. Textual criticism of the New Testament has included study of its textual variants.
Most of the variations are not significant and some common alterations include the deletion, rearrangement, repetition, or replacement of one or more words …(same wiki) Origen,
(Gnostic and Coptic) writing in the 3rd century, was one of the first who made remarks about differences between manuscripts of texts that were eventually collected as the New Testament.
John Mill's 1707 Greek New Testament was estimated to contain some 30,000 variants in its accompanying textual apparatus[1] which was based on "nearly 100 [Greek] manuscripts."[2] Eberhard Nestle estimated this number in 1897 as 150,000–200,000 variants.[3] In 2005, Bart D. Ehrman reported estimates from 200,000 to 400,000 variants based on 5,700 Greek and 10,000 Latin manuscripts, various other ancient translations, and quotations by the Church Fathers.[4] In 2014 Eldon J. Epp raised the estimate as high as 750,000.[5] Peter J. Gurry puts the number of non-spelling variants among New Testament manuscripts around 500,000, though he acknowledges his estimate is higher than all previous ones
So Robert – for anyone to say – the KJV is the perfect text – is simply error based in ignorance of the word of God and the complex process it went through to make up your KJVDoes it mean the Word of God is infallible – NOIt just means that the text you hold in your hand is fraught with human hand
99.9% of it is moot – irrelevant – doesn’t matter
MOST of these differences – the vast majority – are insignificant, immaterial, and matter for nothing more than to show that ancient scribes could spell no better than people can today.
However – to the serious student of scripture there are a few exception that really stand out – especially with the KJVBastard TextsThe New Testament verses not included in modern English translations are verses of the New Testament that exist in older English translations (primarily the King James Version), but do not appear or have been relegated to footnotes in later versions, such as the New International Version (NIV). Scholars have generally regarded these verses as later additions to the original text.
Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44 & 9:46, , Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, John 5:3–4, Acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:6–8, Acts 28:29, Romans 16:24, 1 John 5:7–8, Matthew 20:16 (b), Mark 6:11 (b), Luke 4:8 (b), Luke 9:55–56, Luke 23:17, Acts 9:5–6, Acts 13:42, Acts 23:9 (b),
Not omitted but boxed
Mark 16:9–20, John 7:53–8:11,
Versification differences
Romans 14 and 16, 2 Corinthians 13:14, 3 John 15, Revelation 12:18
The TRUTH –
Luke 2:2 does not fit scripture or historyIt only adds fuel for those to use as doubt – a plant inserted or allowed to remain by the scripture editing process (Rome)
Part of me is so pleased that Ellen White took such a strong position on the 6AD evidence of doubt
Do we believe all of scripture – all of God’s word - or do we focus on a few doubt verse to build a doctrine around
6AD Census of Quirinius and cherub chata - and it is a sin to believe you have a soul
Precept upon precept, line upon line – She and her SDA are becoming more clearThe other Bastard Text I asked to study with you wasJoh 6:4 Passover, the Jewish feast, was near.
It is a harmless verse – but without it – the Ministry of Jesus become 70 weeks
But every time I ask to study these interesting things with you – you just keep pushing your satan god
