The Inerrancy of the Bible

Arachnophilia, How can one not respect Kent for walking the walk, not just talking the talk. I respect his opinion not that I agree with everything he says.Instead of wasting millions of federal tax dollars to make displays like shows lucy(a chimp like creature)having human hands, feet in museums to support secular humanisms, to innocent children. These museums should be prosecuted for misuse of federal grant money's. If museums are allowed to continually to set up false displays without accountability, might as well gift Kent a few million dollars for his museum too. Instead what is happening is the IRS has attacked this great mans ministry.

Arachnophilia, http://reluctant-messenger.com/2enoch01-68.htmThe Book of the Secrets of EnochChapters 1-68(also referred to as "Slavonic Enoch" or "2 Enoch")

crashfrog, The bible does not mention where the leg attaches to the grasshopper, locust. It simply says that the legs for jumping are above the other legs, and this appear by your picture to be the case.

Tom writes:

quote:

---

Instead of wasting millions of federal tax dollars to make displays like shows lucy(a chimp like creature)having human hands, feet in museums to support secular humanisms, to innocent children.

---

Oh Tom, come on! You mean to tell us that you look at Lucy and all you see is a waste of tax dollars and secular humanism? You don't see a single clue of anything deeper than that? You expect people to take you seriously?Your "innocent children" need to learn a bit of sober science, whether you want to learn anything yourself or not. You have NO RIGHT to deny innocent children a decent education.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

As I am now Post #200, it is time to bring this topic to a focus. Our question hinges on Biblical Inerrency. It has been shown that the Bible is not literal in wording. The question that needs to be addressed, IMHO, is whether the Bible is Inerrent in meaning?Lets focus on the topic.

berberry, How is putting human hand of a chimp, educating children. If you want to educate the children put chimp hands on chimps. They are lying to the children. kjv Genesis 1:27 says were created in the image of God. When you put human hands on a chimp fossil, your lying to the children, its not sober science. Its an outright lie!P.S. These museum curators should be promoting accurate representations of these chimps. If they refuse to, federal funding should be cut.

Here is the original topic: This means no Hovind, no book of enoch, no Creationism vs Evolution EXCEPT within the meaning of the KJV.
It has been shown that the exact words are controversial.(Golden Calf)
The question now is this:

And how do you know it is a lie? Where did you get that idea that is what has been done?There is, Tom, somebody lieing, but it is whoever told you this.

I'll propose a new topic.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

quote:

---

Arachnophilia, How can one not respect Kent for walking the walk, not
just talking the talk. I respect his opinion not that I agree with everything he says.

---

You mean that he is truly dedicated to the worship of lies as seen in his dishonest attempt to evade paying the taxes due, as well as in his objections to museums putting forward accurate displays.This message has been edited by PaulK, 01-19-2005 02:25 AM

Noble attempt Tom on holding off the hoards. I find it funny that guys quoting the Simpsons and throwing in references to comic books are questioning your intelligence. 36 Christians, I'm not sure yet that I'd back the inerrancy of any English version of the Bible, but on the other hand I'm reading some really stupid statements from these "anti-Creationists so I felt I had to jump in.1) Both the Josephus and N.T. accounts are 2000 years old (for the Noah's age guy this statement is what we would call "an approximation). What gives Josephus any more credibility than the Bible? Is it because he is the more secular source of the two? By the looks of things, this encyclopedia you guys keep quoting seems to think he's "questionable" and "contradictory" which would imply that he's not exactly the best resource to base your arguments on.
His history of the Great Jewish Revolt, though questionable, contradictory or self-serving in many places, is an important source of information for the events of that time. Nevertheless, his personal conduct during the war is a point of contention because he abandoned his position as a rebel officer and joined the Roman camp.
Josephus - Wikipedia
2) NosyNed. You have over 32 pages of topic posts... Impressive. I will try to spend my entire life in internet forums too Seriously though, you should know enough to take your scientific dating ideas to another post. This topic isn't about scientific dating; it's about the KJV's inerrancy. Seeing how all age estimates of the Earth are nothing more than educated guesses, your implication that this is a potential error is a null issue. By the way, there's a reward out for the first piece of evidence that "we evolved," I'm surprised you haven't claimed it...

3) Gold-melting boy. If you are going to start questioning the boiling point of gold, you'd have to then question how a burning bush talks, staffs turn to snakes, and Jesus is raised from the dead. BTW, if you don't believe in miracles, how'd you get here? Don’t tell me: It was through the Miraculous one-time mixing of amino acids in a Miraculously never again reproduced chemical mix... I guess it seems none of us can escape the unexplainable can we? This also doesn't prove/disprove the inerrancy of KJV, it just proves/disproves what you believe in...
4) 2-4 B.C. hang-up guy. So let me get this straight: If a linked article states: "Some chronologers hold that he died in the year 5 BC or 4 BC." And it also states "Accordingly, Herod's death occurred in 2 BC or 1 BC." This somehow shows the Biblical version is wrong? In case you didn't read the article - it clearly implies there is no consensus on this issue (which by the way, doesn't make it an KJV error).
5) 40,000 vs. 4,000 stalls. I suggest you dissenting folks go back and read the word, "of." Once you've read the word "of," try and use it in a sentence. Then, after using it in a sentence, go back to 1 Kings 4:26 - And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots. Just in case Noah's age disputing guy doesn't understand syntax: Using the word "of" in this sentence implies that the 40,000 stalls of horses are for his chariots mentioned in 2 Chronicles 9:25 - And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots.

6) Star/Jupiter folks. Seeing as most everything else in astronomy is a theory at best, how does this prove/disprove anything again? Seeing as you can't even agree as to which date the star/Jupiter phenomenon happened on - how could you even begin to prove/disprove that something occurred? Let's turn your argument around: I have an account of an astronomical discrepancy in the Bible, prove to me it didn't happen. Ever think that maybe this is another example of a miracle (kind of like your old-age evolutionary origins that conveniently are missing a starting point and "links")?
7) Beetle Juice. The only error in the translation of things with 4 crawling legs and 2 jumping legs is your interpretation. Not reading all of verses 20-23 the first time doesn’t make you stupid, on the other hand, not admitting your own error... By the way, beetles are not the same the world over, maybe there actually was a beetle with "jumping legs" back in the day... Heck, you probably believe 80-ton dinos turned to 6-ounce birds, using your logic, some beetles probably had jumping legs, kind of like the flea beetle, which apparently is real and also jumps
http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/crops/pub811/8flea.htm
8) Somebody already answered the Lucifer folks (the same academics who question if the ancient Hebrews believed in Satan even though he’s a main character in Genesis and Job).
9) Non-KJV crowd: Your errors would be a little more of a challenge if you read entire verses/chapters looking for context before you throw them out there.
10) **SNORKSNORK** err *cough, ahem* Nuff said about this guy.

It's not a question of Josephus being more reliable than the Bible. After all those who would identify Lukes census with a "loyalty oath" supposedly administered in 2 BC are the ones asserting that Luke is in error. That these people would also propose that Qurinius (a former consul !) could be a Procurator at that time only shows how little they know.Josephus account of the 6 AD census makes sense givne what we know of Roman government and does not greatly disagree with Luke (Luke's account is less than perfect anyway). The problem is that in dating the birth to this census Luke contradicts Matthew who clearly places the birth of Jesus in the reign of Herod the Great. They also differ on enough other points that it is clearly unreasonable to take Luke and Matthew as telling different versions of the same story.

Good job arguing semantics there. Here's a thought... Does "above" mean where the leg is attached to the body? Or does "above" mean the leg with the highest point? If you want to start arguing modern anatomical planes/reference points I suggest you find a different thread...And this concept also goes for that other guy arguing that an older text is in error because the modern vocabulary changed. Changing cultural understandings don’t put texts in error — it's readers who don’t understand cultural/historical context while reading the texts who put themselves in error. Just because you can’t understand a word, it doesn’t make it an error In case you can’t remember, these kids are not arguing what the most modern or "easiest to read" Bible is, they are arguing that this translation is the only inerrant one.Kids, don’t get discouraged, this is one of your opposition’s best points thus far: **SNORKSNORK** err *cough, ahem*