“But now Herod’s distemper greatly increased upon him after a severe manner, and this by God’s judgment upon him for his sins; for a fire glowed in him slowly, which did not so much appear to the touch outwardly, as it augmented his pains inwardly; for it brought upon him a vehement appetite to eating, which he could not avoid to supply with one sort of food or other. His entrails were also ex-ulcerated, and the chief violence of his pain lay on his colon; an aqueous and transparent liquor also had settled itself about his feet, and a like matter afflicted him at the bottom of his belly. Nay, further, his privy-member was putrefied, and produced worms; and when he sat upright, he had a difficulty of breathing, which was very loathsome, on account of the stench of his breath, and the quickness of its returns; he had also convulsions in all parts of his body, which increased his strength to an insufferable degree.”
That is how Flavius Josephus describes Herod the Great’s final illness. Obviously, it’s not pretty. This is just the tip of the iceberg for Josephus’s many passages on the Jewish king’s life and crimes. Yet in all that, we never find any mention of Herod ordering the massacre of all male children under two years old in the area of Bethlehem.
Now, why am I starting off this OP with one of the nastiest openings in this site’s history? Because of a certain comment by a certain user:
“The Bible is infallible and has not been (cannot be) refuted.”
My question is this: If the Bible can’t be “refuted”, what are we supposed to do when events it describes fly in the face of historical and archaeological evidence?
Fossil
Article URL : https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm#link172HCH0006