Some basic errors in the inerrant Bible

[GenemZ]

Well, yes, we're debating translations of the Bible, and as you saw from the link, those are some of the errors.

I think this reveals why homosexuality is a sin. Any sin cuts one off from spiritual growth which would clarify what you think is a problem, because sin cuts us off from the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth.

Anyone who is actively involved with a personal sin can not see the needed truth to overcome the lie/deception they are being exposed to. That is one important reason never to excuse someone else's area of sin. For it denies them from the coming to know the true nature of Christ, who is to be found by means of the Holy Spirit and knowledge of God's Word.


The problem you presented can be explained to a ten year old. That is... if that ten year old did not have a closed mind and an agenda to defend.

Your inability to grasp the explanations given to you about what you think is a problem with the Bible reveals how damaging being actively gay is to hindering one's spiritual growth, in even the simplest ways.

 

[Brieuse]

I think this reveals why homosexuality is a sin. Any sin cuts one off from spiritual growth which would clarify what you think is a problem, because sin cuts us off from the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth.

Anyone who is actively involved with a personal sin can not see the needed truth to overcome the lie/deception they are being exposed to. That is one important reason never to excuse someone else's area of sin. For it denies them from the coming to know the true nature of Christ, who is to be found by means of the Holy Spirit and knowledge of God's Word.


The problem you presented can be explained to a ten year old. That is... if that ten year old did not have a closed mind and an agenda to defend.

Your inability to grasp the explanations given to you about what you think is a problem with the Bible reveals how damaging being actively gay is to hindering one's spiritual growth, in even the simplest ways.

??

Some of you tell me the Bible is inerrant, I've shown it isn't, a 10 year old can understand that.

 

[WarEagle]

??

Some of you tell me the Bible is inerrant, I've shown it isn't

Not really. So far, all you've shown is that you don't know how to study the Bible.

a 10 year old can understand that.

Looks like a ten year old is where you got your information.

 

[Brieuse]

The problem is that you haven't really demonstrated any errors. So far, all you've shown is that you don't get basic hermeneutic principles.

I've shown plenty, read the link.

 

[WarEagle]

I've shown plenty, read the link.

I saw the link. Nothing shows that the Bible has errors, only that you're desperate.

In every single case presented in the link you provided, the alleged "errors" are either copyist errors or not errors at all, simply different translations.

You've still not shown one error in the text, itself.

 

[Brieuse]

But not to be actively gay....


God saves anyone who accepts Christ. But,


God does not accept the sin.


To say that God approves homosexuality is an extra slap in the face of Christ as he hung on the cross to die for that sin.

God approves of homosexuality. It's His plan

 

[WarEagle]

God approves of homosexuality. It's His plan

If it's God's plan, then show us where we're told this in scripture.

 

[Brieuse]

I saw the link. Nothing shows that the Bible has errors, only that you're desperate.

In every single case presented in the link you provided, the alleged "errors" are either copyist errors or not errors at all, simply different translations.

You've still not shown one error in the text, itself.

read the link

 

[Brieuse]

read the link

It's even in the meta tags for the name of the link. KJV ERRORS. Let's not get started on the NIV

 

[WarEagle]

read the link

I did read the link. All they could show were alleged copyist errors and differences in interpretation, not any actual errors in the text.

 

[Brieuse]

I did read the link. All they could show were alleged copyist errors and differences in interpretation, not any actual errors in the text.

Well, yes, which means that your Bible you hold in your hand is not inerrant. Point made, debate concluded. Right?

 

[WarEagle]

Well, yes, which means that your Bible you hold in your hand is not inerrant. Point made, debate concluded. Right?

No. A copyist error doesn't mean that the text is errant. It means that the copyist made a mistake after the fact.

If you want to show from the original texts that the Bible is errant, please do.

Speaking of original texts, I notice that you ignored my question about punctuation in the Greek.

Likewise, that there are different translations doesn't mean that it is errant.

Two people can translate a passage differently, yet both can still be accurate.

 

[Brieuse]

No. A copyist error doesn't mean that the text is errant. It means that the copyist made a mistake after the fact.

If you want to show from the original texts that the Bible is errant, please do.

Speaking of original texts, I notice that you ignored my question about punctuation in the Greek.

Likewise, that there are different translations doesn't mean that it is errant.

Two people can translate a passage differently, yet both can still be accurate.

I am fully aware about the punctuation.

Ok, how do we prove the original texts are inerrant, seeing as they don't exist anymore?

 

[Brieuse]

I am fully aware about the punctuation.

Ok, how do we prove the original texts are inerrant, seeing as they don't exist anymore?

You either didn't read the link or you are as blind as a bat. I think you just can't be bothered to read the link.

"The original Greek did not have punctuation marks as we do today"

 

[WarEagle]

You either didn't read the link or you are as blind as a bat. I think you just can't be bothered to read the link.

I did read the link. Rather than just repeating "you didn't read the link" over and over again, perhaps you can quote something from the link that proves me wrong.

"The original Greek did not have punctuation marks as we do today"

Is that your answer?

 

[WarEagle]

I am fully aware about the punctuation.

If you're aware that there no punctuation exists, then it's awfully silly of you to claim that there's a punctuation error.

Ok, how do we prove the original texts are inerrant, seeing as they don't exist anymore?

Since we have the original texts or, in some cases, faithful copies of them, it's up to you to examine them and tell us where the errors are.

 

[GenemZ]

??

Some of you tell me the Bible is inerrant, I've shown it isn't, a 10 year old can understand that.

A ten year old can understand the difference between the Bible (what's written in the Hebrew and Greek) and what a translation is from the Hebrew and Greek.


They can be reasoned with. They can be told that some man/woman translating from the original language made an error in a passage. They can then be shown how a corrected translation was created to solve the problem.


Ten year olds have no sexual sins or hang ups to protect. They can listen and accept correction a lot quicker than many adults on this sort of matter, who have a motivation to disprove the Bible. For children have no ax to grind with the Word of God to protect and guard their sexual sins.


To them it would be no big deal.

OK... I get it. Someone translated wrong. That's a translation of the Bible into English, not the original Bible. OK... I understand.

And, I understand if the translation contains errors? It will be corrected in time by other men, so we can better know the Bible in English.

OK... May I go out and play now?

​

​

 

[Brieuse]

If you're aware that there no punctuation exists, then it's awfully silly of you to claim that there's a punctuation error.



Since we have the original texts or, in some cases, faithful copies of them, it's up to you to examine them and tell us where the errors are.

We don't have the original texts.

 

[WarEagle]

We don't have the original texts.

LOL...if you say so.

 

[GenemZ]

We don't have the original texts.

If you knew of the extremely strict discipline and the over engineering of its day that went into transcribing the texts? You would not say that.

Copying was not done by one man, but a team that would double and triple check each others work. Only small segments at a time were transcribed. Its was very tedious and exacting work. They saw it as the very words of God. Only the highest educated and intelligent few were assigned this task.

" In order to keep from speaking the Lord's name in vain, Jews neglected to speak the Lord's name at all; this legality even extended to their copies of Old Testament. Jewish scribes copied their religious text with relentless accuracy. The copies were checked and rechecked and rechecked, and if a mistake was made in copying, the offending copy was immediately destroyed to keep it from being used as a master copy in the future. These checks were so exact that numerical values for the letters themselves were assigned, and then added up to ensure that each document had the same amount of each letter and added up to the same final sum.
The Jews were so particular about their holy texts, and held them in such high esteem, that when a copy had become to worn for regular use, it was actually interred in order to prevent it's use in profaning God's name, in accordance with the Third Commandment."
​

http://oregonstate.edu/groups/socratic/event/event5/event5.html​