Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Inerrancy of the Bible
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 301 (176278)
01-12-2005 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Cthulhu
01-12-2005 12:40 PM


Four-Legged Bugs
Rip a couple of legs off those bugs before you eat the critters ... makes'm cleaner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Cthulhu, posted 01-12-2005 12:40 PM Cthulhu has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 32 of 301 (176280)
01-12-2005 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Coragyps
01-12-2005 2:11 PM


Coragyps, The verses seem to indicate some beetles have two legs above their four creeping feet for jumping 6 total. These appear to be clean to eat, not sure about those your talkin about? If they have more than two legs for jumping they would be unclean. If they have more than 4 feet for creeping or have more or less than two legs for jumping they would be unclean.
kjv Lev 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
kjv Lev 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Coragyps, posted 01-12-2005 2:11 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Coragyps, posted 01-12-2005 4:06 PM johnfolton has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 301 (176281)
01-12-2005 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by johnfolton
01-12-2005 2:19 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by johnfolton, posted 01-12-2005 2:19 PM johnfolton has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 34 of 301 (176283)
01-12-2005 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by johnfolton
01-12-2005 12:19 PM


Bret writes:
Dan, Would you not agree the translators included insects that creepeth on four feet as a fowl...etc...
I think your approach can be described as, "For every error identified, simply deny that it is an error." In this case you've rationalized that, "If I can find an interpretation for which this passage isn't wrong, no matter how outlandish, unbelievable or inconsistent, then it isn't wrong."
The definition of an error isn't what you personally decide to concede as an error. In this particular case, the contrived nature of your explanation is clear to everyone.
On many instances of Biblical error, the rationalizations are complex and incredibly extensive. The best example is the rationalizations invented to explain Genesis that come from those who agree with ICR. The approach goes like this: "Physics is wrong. Geology is wrong. Cosmology is wrong. Astronomy is wrong. Radiometric dating is wrong. Archeology is wrong." And so on.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by johnfolton, posted 01-12-2005 12:19 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by johnfolton, posted 01-12-2005 4:43 PM Percy has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 35 of 301 (176294)
01-12-2005 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by johnfolton
01-12-2005 2:34 PM


The verses seem to indicate some beetles have two legs above their four creeping feet for jumping 6 total.
Why don't you find me an example? I can't think of one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by johnfolton, posted 01-12-2005 2:34 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by johnfolton, posted 01-12-2005 6:00 PM Coragyps has not replied

36Christians
Inactive Junior Member


Message 36 of 301 (176298)
01-12-2005 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by PaulK
01-10-2005 10:35 AM


Well you can start by explaining how you know that John 17:17 refers to the Bible. Especially as John 17:14 implies that it refers to Jesus' own teachings.
John 17:14 states of Christ, I have given them thy word John 17:17 records Christ’s request of God, Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. There is no contradiction here. Jesus is merely stating that the Word of God is true. The Bible claims to be the Word of God in II Timothy 3:16. And Jesus stated in John 10:35 that the Scripture cannot be broken. It is well known that the Bible claims to be the Word of God and that, as a book from God, it also claims to be completely true. We have opened this discussion to demonstrate the validity of these claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 01-10-2005 10:35 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 01-12-2005 5:26 PM 36Christians has not replied

36Christians
Inactive Junior Member


Message 37 of 301 (176299)
01-12-2005 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Brian
01-10-2005 10:50 AM


Which King James Version are we talking about?
If it is the most recent one, then do we assume that the earlier KJV's contain errors?
There is really only one King James Version of the Bible (not counting the NKJV). However, the KJV has gone through four minor revisions for two reasons.
1) The revisions of 1629 and 1638 corrected some typographical errors discovered in the original printing. The typesetting of the original printing of the KJV was completed by hand, one letter at a time. There are a total of 789,500 words in the KJV. The typesetters of 1611 did not have computers to run spelling and grammar checks on their work, and it is only reasonable to expect them to make a few mistakes (only about 400 by the way, which makes their first printing 99.95% accurate). However, though these corrections were needed for the printed edition, there is no indication that any changes were ever made to the actual text of the KJV.
2) The revisions of 1762 and 1769 were actually a single revision broken into two parts. This revision was necessary to accommodate recent typesetting and spelling changes in the English language itself. For instance, in the 1611 typesetting, the lower case letter s looks like our letter f, the letter’s u and v are reversed (v for u and u for v), the letter j looks like our letter i, and the letter d looks more like the Greek delta. There were also some minor spelling changes such as feare to fear, mee to me, ranne to ran, and ftarres to stars. Once again, there were no changes made to the actual text of the King James Version.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Brian, posted 01-10-2005 10:50 AM Brian has not replied

36Christians
Inactive Junior Member


Message 38 of 301 (176300)
01-12-2005 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by sidelined
01-10-2005 11:21 AM


quote:
Acts 20:35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.
Ok let us open on this one
Please show chapter and verse of where Jesus ever said this.
As you already know, this exact statement is not found in the four Gospels. Yet we do find an explanation for this fact. John 21:25 says, And there are also many other which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. There are only 82,590 words in the Gospels and not all of those are quotes of Jesus. It is quite probable that Jesus did make this statement for it coincides perfectly with Matthew 10:41-42 and Luke 14:12-14.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by sidelined, posted 01-10-2005 11:21 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by dpardo, posted 01-12-2005 4:58 PM 36Christians has not replied
 Message 49 by sidelined, posted 01-12-2005 11:37 PM 36Christians has replied

36Christians
Inactive Junior Member


Message 39 of 301 (176301)
01-12-2005 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dan Carroll
01-10-2005 12:07 PM


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.
The answer to this is that they were simply using a different classification system. Our current animal classification system was developed by Carolus Linnaeus in the 1800s. Linnaeus based his system on similarities of basic body structure. There are a few exceptions to this system such as the duck-billed platypus and the spiny anteater, and even now not all biologists agree on how all organisms should be classified. Likewise, the classification system of the 1500s BC probably had a few animals (the bat as a fowl and the whale as a fish) that were exceptions to the norm of their positions in the charts. This does not necessarily mean that their system was wrong and ours is right. It just means that they used different criteria for their classification than we do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-10-2005 12:07 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-12-2005 4:52 PM 36Christians has not replied
 Message 52 by purpledawn, posted 01-13-2005 8:27 AM 36Christians has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 40 of 301 (176304)
01-12-2005 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Percy
01-12-2005 2:49 PM


Percy, If you look at the verses that include the bat with the insect that fly that are unclean to eat it becomes clear the issue is not about the bat being a bird or a butterfly. Its simply talking about what creatures that fly that are unclean to eat, when you run into little issues like this you simply confir with the Hebrew or Greek to see what root word was used by the translators, because some word meanings has changed a bit since the KJV was translated.
The other bible versions they say are easier to understand because they changed some of the wording, but they are using different root manuscripts, and not based on the textus receptus. The New King James Version has been cut to conform to these other flawed manuscripts. http://www.nisbett.com/versions/bible08.htm
The English language has no doubt changed in respect to the use of fowl meaning feathery birds. At the time the translators used this word it appears its was the best word to encompass all the winged creatures that fly.
Fowl
FOWL, n. [L. fugio, fugo, Gr. and signifying the flying animal.]
A flying or winged animal; the generic name of certain animals that move through the air by the aid of wings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Percy, posted 01-12-2005 2:49 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 01-12-2005 5:13 PM johnfolton has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 301 (176306)
01-12-2005 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by 36Christians
01-12-2005 4:22 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by 36Christians, posted 01-12-2005 4:22 PM 36Christians has not replied

dpardo
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 301 (176308)
01-12-2005 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by 36Christians
01-12-2005 4:21 PM


36Christians writes:
As you already know, this exact statement is not found in the four Gospels. Yet we do find an explanation for this fact. John 21:25 says, And there are also many other which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. There are only 82,590 words in the Gospels and not all of those are quotes of Jesus. It is quite probable that Jesus did make this statement for it coincides perfectly with Matthew 10:41-42 and Luke 14:12-14.
Also, it is consistent with Luke 12:16-21:
16 And he [Jesus] spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully:
17 And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits?
18 And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.
19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.
20 But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?
21 So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by 36Christians, posted 01-12-2005 4:21 PM 36Christians has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 43 of 301 (176312)
01-12-2005 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by johnfolton
01-12-2005 4:43 PM


Bret writes:
Percy, If you look at the verses that include the bat with the insect that fly that are unclean to eat it becomes clear the issue is not about the bat being a bird or a butterfly.
That's interesting, but I didn't make any arguments about bats, birds or butterflies.
I wasn't attempting to raise any specific objections to your arguments about the passage about clean and unclean animals. I was objecting to your approach. You seem to believe that if you simply deny that errors in the Bible are errors, that the Bible is therefore inerrant. You implement this approach by inventing contexts and interpretations for which the passage could be correct, no matter how strained.
Using your approach I could show any text errant. If I had a book that said, "The sky is green," I could just say, "There was probably a volcanic eruption nearby on the day this happened." This kind of exercise proves nothing.
In the same way, you postulate that the clean/unclean passage only considered legs that weren't used for jumping, despite that the Bible says no such thing. You say this because this is an interpretation under which the passage could be correct, and not because there's any indication that this is what the passage actually meant. And by the way, there are plenty of species of beetles that don't jump, probably most of them.
It's almost as if you and 36Christians are approaching this as some kind of test of religious faith, dutifully contriving some sort of rationalization for every Biblical error raised. It's an interesting exercise, I suppose, but it doesn't actually accomplish anything.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by johnfolton, posted 01-12-2005 4:43 PM johnfolton has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 44 of 301 (176315)
01-12-2005 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by 36Christians
01-12-2005 4:18 PM


No, the Bible does NOT claim to be the Word of God in 2 Timothy.
I know the verse you refer to and it refers only to "scripture" being "God-breathed". It is neither clear about which documents it is intended to refer to nor exactly what "God-breathed" means - it certainly falls short of an explicit claim that the Bible IS the Word of God. Especially as it is not difficult to find parts of the Bible which are certainly not written as if God were the author.
It may be widely-believed that the Bible claims to be the Word of God but it needs to be stated that this is merely a questionable translation of a vague text.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by 36Christians, posted 01-12-2005 4:18 PM 36Christians has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 45 of 301 (176322)
01-12-2005 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Coragyps
01-12-2005 4:06 PM


Coragyps, The Hebrew root word could mean a form of locust. I would not eat any beetles. Grasshopper legs are cool, but beetle juice is not cool. Unless you have more information that there is a beetle that flies and that jumps with legs that are above 4 feet they use for creeping, thats safe to eat.
We couldn't find that Web page (Error 404) / Nous ne pouvons trouver cette page Web (Erreur 404)
The verse was pretty much in context with locust, grasshopper like creatures being clean to eat. Leaning there is another particular type of grasshopper/locust, that the translators were not aware of, because beetle juice is not cool.
kjv Lev 11:21 Yet389 (853) these2088 may ye eat398 of every4480, 3605 flying5775 creeping thing8318 that goeth1980 upon5921 all four,702 which834 have legs3767 above4480, 4605 their feet,7272 to leap5425 withal2004 upon5921 the earth;776
kjv Lev 11:22 Even (853) these428 of4480 them ye may eat;398 (853) the locust697 after his kind,4327 and the bald locust5556 after his kind,4327 and the beetle2728 after his kind,4327 and the grasshopper2284 after his kind.4327
kjv Lev 11:23 But all3605 other flying5775 creeping things,8318 which834 have four702 feet,7272 shall be an abomination8263 unto you.
H2728

cha^rgo^l
khar-gole'
From H2727; the leaping insect, that is, a locust: - beetle.
This message has been edited by Bret, 01-12-2005 18:06 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Coragyps, posted 01-12-2005 4:06 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Percy, posted 01-12-2005 8:17 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 103 by Cthulhu, posted 01-15-2005 12:35 PM johnfolton has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024