|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Inerrancy of the Bible | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
We are ready to receive and refute any apparent contradiction or error in the King James Bible. What kind of animal is a bat? According to Leviticus 11:13-20, it's a bird. Please explain what thorough study one could make of the passage in question in order to show that this is not an error; that bats are in fact birds.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
The bible calls all flying creatures it seems by the same hebrew word. The Hebrew word is irrelevant. 36Christians specifically identified the King James version as being perfect all on its own. The KJV is in English.
Genesis chapter 1 confirms fowl are simply the many different creatures that fly, including the bat & the insects. Yeah, the English language says something different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Dan, Would you not agree the translators included insects that creepeth on four feet as a fowl. It would seem that way, yes. Thanks for tossing up another error; insects are not fowl either.
When the translators called the insects fowl too, then it brings the bat as a fowl too into context. See... you seem to be saying that because they called something else fowl that isn't, that means it's not an error. And that's so freakin' nuts I don't even know where to start. They can call a bat or an insect fowl all they please. They can call them hermaphrodite monkeys with eight fingers where their nipples should be, for that matter. Either way, it's an error to do so. "Fowl" and "flying creature" are not interchangable terms. To use "fowl" when you mean "flying creature" is an error.
There is no confusion it quite clear as written. Sure... it's quite clear that they messed up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Dan, It appears your in agreement that the bible is inerrant Okay, now I'm just wondering how someone can read a post that points out an error in a text, and respond by saying, "Oh, so you think the text has no errors!" This is why the majority of believers make me shake my head in amazement.
your only problem was the translators using the word fowl for the all inclusive hebrew root word. Which means, of course, that the translators messed up. Which means that the KJV is not inerrant. What part of this idea is giving you trouble?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Dan Carroll, Since you believe the Hebrew and Greek texts is inerrant and it was just the translators that at times used a poor choice of words in their translation. No, but apparently you believe in putting words in my mouth. What does your god have to say about bearing false witness in this fashion, out of curiosity? There is an error in the KJV text that is possibly due to a mistranslation from the Hebrew. It does not logically follow that the Hebrew and Greek versions are perfect. Since the subject at hand was the KJV, I brought up a glaring error in the KJV, and didn't try to sidetrack things into other versions, as you are attempting to do. (At this point, I edited out a bit that, although extremely funny, was pretty gross, even for me.) This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 01-12-2005 13:39 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Bret, let's nail this right down to the ground, okay? If you are talking about anything other than the King James Version, then what you are saying is irrelevant.
The original poster was asking for errors in the King James Version. There are plenty of other threads on this forum which deal with general, cross-version, cross-language biblical inerrancy. If you wish to discuss one of these versions, head to one of those threads, or start your own. The topic at hand is errors in the King James Version. "Egos drone and pose alone, Like black balloons, all banged and blown On a backwards river, infidels shiver In the stench of belief And tell my mama I'm a hundred years late I'm over the rails and out of the race The crippled psalms of an age that won't thaw ringing in my ears" -Beck
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Dan Carol, If your talking about the inerrancy of the KJV you have to include the Hebrew Greek manuscripts that the translators used. Well, I say you have to include Jack Kirby's run on Fantastic Four. Sure, it's a totally different text, but I want to include it in the discussion; therefore we have to. And on that note, Galactus could never have fit on Noah's Ark. So there you go, more errors.
The Gutenberg bible used the textus receptus, meaning this part is the same as the KJV, one is written in German, the other in English. And we are talking about the one written in English. Again, what is so hard to get about this? To say that the textus receptus must be included in a discussion of the KJV is like saying that "Ten Things I Hate About You" is one of the greatest literary works of all time, because "Taming of the Shrew" is so good. Source material is irrelevant when discussing the merits of a text. If the text doesn't hold up to scrutiny, then it simply doesn't hold up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
The answer to this is that they were simply using a different classification system. Okay. I classify the word "telephone" to mean "african-american haberdasher". Wow, that's fun! And apparently, I'm not wrong. I'm simply using a different classification system.
Likewise, the classification system of the 1500s BC probably Ut! Before arguing this position, please go check this for sure. Arguing on "probably"s is a really crap way to go about proving your point. They did know back then, for instance, that bats don't lay eggs, and that birds do. This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 01-12-2005 16:55 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Flies only, That depends on how you define Inerrant. Does "without errors" work for you? If not, you should probably take that complaint up with the English language.
No matter how you cut it, its a supernatural book. Insofar as it is a book about the supernatural. Of course, so is "Needful Things"... This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 01-14-2005 13:51 AM "Egos drone and pose alone, Like black balloons, all banged and blown On a backwards river, infidels shiver In the stench of belief And tell my mama I'm a hundred years late I'm over the rails and out of the race The crippled psalms of an age that won't thaw ringing in my ears" -Beck
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024