got everything except Louis Armstrong up through 1935... and then after that everything kind of fell apart. Got Jackson by accident and Bono at the last second but that was it.
Seriously, why do you have this weird fixation with correcting anyone and everyone who says Jesus was born in Bethlehem? There was a census that year, where all those in Israel were told to go to the city of their lineage. Which, in Jesus' parent(s) case, would be Bethlehem. Nothing weird about it, people are born in cities they don't live in all the time. Case in point: I myself was born in Alabama, but I don't live there.
It's not a weird fixation. If the quiz said that one hundred plus eleven = one hundred and eleven, and someone in the comments section said "no actually it's eleventyone", and another person replied "the quiz is most likely accurate, though there is that work of fiction by Tolkien that uses your number and in Old English this was also right so in a way you can be considered correct"... you would not call this a weird fixation.
Why do you have this weird fixation on defending the accounts of the gospel as if they are historical fact when we know that they are not?
kalbahamut: "probably more plausible" - nice weasel words to get round the fact there's no evidence for Nazareth beyond "the Bible's nativity narrative can't be trusted, therefore it must be wrong in all the details". Shame you've lost the doubt and humility in the 6 years since!
This isn't to argue for Bethlehem, but to say that insisting on Nazareth is a dogmatic position, rather than a reasonable one. Nazareth isn't "one hundred and eleven", but "twelfty take nine" that someone made up as they didn't like the idea of "eleventy-one" that someone else made up (though the whole 111 thing was a terrible analogy anyway).
floydro: you might want to double check the ide that Luke suggests the census was in the time of Herod the Great. Which King Herod Luke is talking about at a particular time is never specified by him, and Herod's name doesn't come up in relation to the census. But what else can we expect from dogma-based, rather than evidence-based, arguments. ;)
The contradictory and amusingly contrived accounts of the birth of Jesus in the Bible suggest that the gospel authors were trying to find some way for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem (which would make sense as the prophecy of the messiah in the Old Testament said he would be born in Bethlehem). If he had really been born in Bethlehem and lived in Bethlehem they would just have said he was born in Bethlehem and not mention a census or persecution as a reason for movement. So we can infer that they were trying to find reasons for why he would ostensibly be from Nazareth when he was supposed to be from Bethlehem. Unless Jesus actually was the messiah and the prophecies had magically seen the future, we can infer from Occum's Razor that he was probably born in Nazareth, though of course it is possible that this is false.
There is no hard evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, Nazareth, or anywhere else. In fact there's no evidence that Jesus was even born at all. We're working with what we've got. In my case that's logic. In your case, mr. hole, you've got dogma-based arguments. And yes, those are always expected when it comes to this particular subject. There is no dogma anywhere that says Jesus was born in Nazareth, so hard to be dogmatic about this. If I had to bet money on it I'd actually say that Jesus was born in some small village that either no longer exists or was never recorded. But if the choices were Nazareth or Bethlehem then Nazareth makes more sense.
Jesus definitely could have been born in Bethlehem. It's not dogmatic at all to think so. I agree with the other poster that argued that people are often born in towns that they don't grow up in.
It was that way for me. I was born in one town, then my folks moved away when I was about 2 or 3 years old. Grew up in a different town some distance away. So the one town was my birthplace (my "Bethlehem," so to speak), while the other town was my hometown (my "Nazareth"). The same thing happened with my brother.
Is there any actual evidence that shows that Jesus WASN'T born in Bethlehem? I'm not aware of any. So if not, then the gospel, whether you believe in it religiously or not, or whether you believe it's accuracy or not, is the best account that we currently have of where He was born.
There's no hard evidence for Jesus being born anywhere. But historians trying to suss out some version of a historical Jesus piece together all the circumstantial evidence we have and make the best possible guesses. Part of that evidence are the gospels, but a big part of understanding the gospels is understanding that they are definitely not written as historical documents. There are reasons why the nativity stories in them claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but the facts laid out in those stories simply don't check out. Since we understand that the nativity stories are written as myth, then the next best guess we are left with as to where Jesus was born would be the same answer as almost every human born around that time: the place they grew up. So that may be Nazareth... though... if you look into this that's not even clear. It's possible the village that Jesus was from no longer exists and is not attested to in any historical document, but had a demonym similar to Nazareth.
This is a very odd and trippy quiz. But I'm happy to take my 18 and go. One thing though, I'm pretty sure I tried Khan and Genghis Khan a few times. But I guess I must have been doing something wrong, since I don't see anyone else complaining about it.
I absolutely love this quiz! (Even though I only got 12/24.) Also, thank you for writing that Jesus was born in Nazareth in 5 BC. I've seen quizzes on this website that say that he was born in Bethlehem in the year 0.
I know him as Dschingis Khan but since that's not English or Mongolian I tried different variations with D like Djingis/Djinghis and Djengis/Djenghis before remembering.
I'm sorry but if we are going to put Jesus in here it should be Bethlehem, not Nazareth. Almost everything we know about this Jesus figure is from the Gospels, so if we are referring to him, we should go by what the Gospels say. I urge you to change it. Or even better: Take it out.
Jesus was born in a stable in Bethlehem sometime in October in the year 2 BC (or BCE). The census was ordered by Caeser Augustus, not Herod. Herod died in 4 BC (or BCE), two years before the birth of Christ.
All who complain about a USA website having USA questions should know all their soccer questions are automatic wrong answers for quiz takers in the USA, so stuff it.
And every question on US sports, of which there are a few, are automatic wrong answers for non North Americans. Total up how many "soccer" questions there are on here and then total up how many questions there are on US sports and come back to us and tell us then who has a valid point.
He does I dont know anything about ANY sport, so I am not biased, and most sportsquizzes I see coming by are nhl nfl nhs or whatever they are called, soccer i definitely not more represented, actually it hardly ever comes along. I guess you hardly notice the things that are normal to you anymore, so the ones that aret stand out and you dont realise how big the proportions is of things you do know.
Compare it to watching tv in a household, one person says they ALwayys have to watch shows the other ones likes, while in reality it might be 3/20 but just ones he really hates, and dont realize 12/20 are programs HE chooses (but somehow he feels that doesnt count, "yea but thats the news, yea but thats a great show, yea but we Allways watch that" etc. So he unconsciously downplays it. (and perhaps a bit consciously..) Because he thinks it is logical to watch them or doesnt even realize it anymore.
people's vision are often skewed because attention is drawn to things that stand
Thats not the point, if more quizzes are made about the NBA and NFL, it's because there are more users interested in it that use this site, it's a stupid thing to complain about. If there were more European users, there would be more "soccer" quizzes. If I went on a site based in Europe and started complaining about all the "soccer" quizzes, I would be a moron.
Football is the literal rest of the world, not just Europe. The one footballer on this list was born in Argentina. You're basically saying that Americans count more than everyone else. Which is, you know, unsurprising. If horrendously insulting.
Is it a USA website though? It might have been started in the US and hosted on a US server, but it's the internet (i.e. it's international), so anyone with access to the internet can use it.
For the Argentina 1928 one I kept guessing Pope Francis, although I have no clue how old he is exactly. Was really the only 'old Argentinian' that I could come up with. Always forget Guevara was born in Argentina...
I notice that the list slowly degenerates from the most famous people in world history, such as Confucius, Shakespeare, Jesus, Lincoln etc. and brings in such passing media plastics as Bono, Cyrus, Messi etc......... who will be forgotten not long from now. Is this what has become of the human race?
It is is definitely what has become of trivia quizzes, but well that sort of has always been the case, a part will always be current knowledge. And only a few of those will stand the test of time, the rest will be replaced with more recent current knowledge.
same goes for local knowledge a pubquiz in country A will have other questions than in country B
I suspect that Lionel Messi will be remembered for quite some time, if not by Americans then by much of the rest of the world. Usain Bolt's legacy will fade as his achievements are surpassed by others that are even quicker. Miley Cyrus I had forgotten about already
I find it very interesting that any city outside of the USA has the country listed as well. It's like everywhere else in the world we're supposed to know all the US states, but those in USA need to be told that there's life outside of their country.
Why do you have this weird fixation on defending the accounts of the gospel as if they are historical fact when we know that they are not?
This isn't to argue for Bethlehem, but to say that insisting on Nazareth is a dogmatic position, rather than a reasonable one. Nazareth isn't "one hundred and eleven", but "twelfty take nine" that someone made up as they didn't like the idea of "eleventy-one" that someone else made up (though the whole 111 thing was a terrible analogy anyway).
floydro: you might want to double check the ide that Luke suggests the census was in the time of Herod the Great. Which King Herod Luke is talking about at a particular time is never specified by him, and Herod's name doesn't come up in relation to the census. But what else can we expect from dogma-based, rather than evidence-based, arguments. ;)
It was that way for me. I was born in one town, then my folks moved away when I was about 2 or 3 years old. Grew up in a different town some distance away. So the one town was my birthplace (my "Bethlehem," so to speak), while the other town was my hometown (my "Nazareth"). The same thing happened with my brother.
Is there any actual evidence that shows that Jesus WASN'T born in Bethlehem? I'm not aware of any. So if not, then the gospel, whether you believe in it religiously or not, or whether you believe it's accuracy or not, is the best account that we currently have of where He was born.
Compare it to watching tv in a household, one person says they ALwayys have to watch shows the other ones likes, while in reality it might be 3/20 but just ones he really hates, and dont realize 12/20 are programs HE chooses (but somehow he feels that doesnt count, "yea but thats the news, yea but thats a great show, yea but we Allways watch that" etc. So he unconsciously downplays it. (and perhaps a bit consciously..) Because he thinks it is logical to watch them or doesnt even realize it anymore.
people's vision are often skewed because attention is drawn to things that stand
same goes for local knowledge a pubquiz in country A will have other questions than in country B
≈ 1412 - Domrémy, Kingdom of France
1762 - Stettin, Prussia
1867 - Warsaw, Congress Poland
1897 - Atchison, Kansas
1926 - Mayfair, London
1997 - Mingora, Pakistan
(edit: I just noticed there is a #2, which is a bit better balanced. It's admittedly difficult unfortunately.)