Inundated by the Flood Part I

A contentious issue that seems to be a major dividing point between atheists and the religious, as well as among various religious groups themselves, is the biblical account of the Flood. This has ranged, comically in some cases, from external discussions regarding the breathing space and window size needed for x number of species  to apparent internal contradictions in the durations of the flood itself. Obviously, undertaking every issue would require more time than I have to spare, but I can hopefully settle enough in the following posts so as to dissipate some of the histrionics that plague serious discussion. First of all, the notion of the geographic universality of the Flood can, contrary to some interpreters, be abandoned while still doing justice to the Genesis account and without compromising the anthropological universality the Deluge.

Quieting Quirinius

With the advent of the Internet, information has been able to spread rather quickly and facts are disseminated at an astronomical rate. This is, of course, a good thing. But it would be naive to assume that misinformation could not be spread as quickly, and perhaps in some cases, even quicker. Needless to say, I think issues of paramount importance, such as the one I am about to undertake, have suffered mercilessly from this abusive and perpetuating trend. It is indeed ironic that widespread access to information should facilitate the exact opposite of the expected effect (but again, maybe not given what we can see in history). Anyways, I think the author of the Gospel of Luke has unjustly become the victim of this. The issue arising from the purported discrepancy in the dating of Christ's birth has been continuously peddled as the knife in the heart of biblical inerrancy. Of course, the edifice of biblical inerrancy may come crashing down, but I don't see any reason to think that it will be at the hands of Luke.