The Inerrancy of the Bible

Please Paul, elaborate as to how a Consul can/cannot later become a Procurator? Maybe I'm wrong but I could've sworn I've read many leaders in many cultures in many eras lose some of their political power? Your claim is a little speculative considering almost every Roman record from this time period has been lost/destroyed...As far as this "alleged" census - modern census techniques are always coming under fire for missing segments of the population. Why would a census undertaken 2000 years ago in a border province be so much more accurate? In fact, with the lack of speedy communication, odds are it could've taken a few years to pan out They disagree on the reign of Herod the Great and this census? How do you know this again? Oh yes, the historical account by a guy named Josephus who from various encyclopedia descriptions is less than credible.
JOSEPHUS, FLAVIUS - JewishEncyclopedia.com
Josephus - WikipediaPaul, if you don't understand manipulation of historical accounts, I once read a newspaper article that said "Dewey Defeats TrumanAs far as these other nameless differences? Point them out, these kids are asking for errors

No, he just goes up on tax evasion, and uses arguements that even the answers in genesis people say are wrong.How about reading a review of his 'thesis'?Account SuspendedOr, how about the article on the 'answers in genesis' web site, a group dedicated to creationism and "Proving" a young earth, Missing Link | Answers in Genesis

Well, you arent' getting the point about herods death. The account in luke is mutually exclusive in the account of matthew, which makes it a contradiction. It doesn't matter of Herod died in 1 or 2 bc, or in 4 b.c. It STILL is well before the census that could not have taken place in Juddah at Ceasar Augustus' command before 6 c.e.. a gap of lat least 6, probably 10 years.

A Procurator had to be of the Equestrian class (it was reserved for that class. But the Consul had to be of Senatorial rank and therefore NOT of the Equestrian class (after the reforms of 123BC).Qurinius was Consul in 12 BC - and therefore must have already been a Senator.Your comments about what you call the "alleged census" make no sense. There was a census when the Romans annexed Judaea, but we have no record of any prior census - especially not a Roman census for tax purposes as described by Luke. Why carry out a census for
taxes that do not apply ?Josephus may not be perfect but his basic information makes sense - and it is utterly impossible for Judaea to be both a client kingdom ruled by Herod AND fully part of a Roman Province. Moreover, Matthew agrees with Josephus that Herod was succeeded by Archelaus. No, appealing to manipulation of the historical record makes no sense whatsoever.As for the other differences I suggest you carefully read the stories for yourself and see just how little they have in common.

Hi, Incognito! The motions of planets against the starry background and the nightly apparent motion of stars, planets, and all to the west aren't "a theory at best." Next time it's clear where you are, go out about midnight and watch for Jupiter to come up. It'll be the brightest starry-looking thing in the east. Watch it 'till daybreak, and see if it "stands over" any location as Tom said it "stood over Bethlehem as seen from Jerusalem." The only way that can happen is through a Joshua-style stopping of the earth's rotation/movement of the universe about our stationary planet.
The Romans, Olmecs, Chinese, and Indians would have noticed that.

Look, Grover, I'm pretty sure I know what "above" means, and it doesn't just mean "higher than", it means "over." Those legs are not located above the other legs, they're behind the other legs.There's no meaningful way they can be said to be above. They might be higher than the other legs at their highest point, but that's not what "above" means. Also that's trivial, because the legs are also lower than the other legs at their lowest point, because they're simply larger than the other legs. Ah, how convinient. Any time the Bible appears to be in error, it's simply because we don't understand the "cultural context"; a cultural context that can, apparently, reverse the meaning of words and divide a number of stables by 10. Do you have any evidence for this cultural context? Or isn't the only reason you propose it exists because the Bible appears to need it?

Well, does 40,000 mean exactly 40,000? Could not there have actually been 38,456 horses? My point is that the verse indicates that a large number of horses existed. This is the fact that we need to move forward with. The Bible is not a book of exact statistics...the meaning, however, is what must be considered. Do you really expect those people to have access to pocket calculators?

No, but with God supposedly whispering the text into their ears, I would expect the numbers to come out right.

To claim that the book is in error, one must prove that Jesus never made this statement. You cannot prove that. Therefore you cannot claim that the book is in error.

There are several classification systems used in America today for organizing books and libraries. The Dewey Decimal System and the Library of Congress Numbering System are two of them. These two systems do not agree with each other as to how different books should be classified, but this does not make one system right and the other wrong. They are simply different. Our current system for classifying animals did not exist when the book of Leviticus was written. It was developed in the eighteenth century by Carolus Linnaeus. Therefore whatever system was in use in 1500 BC was different from the one used today. It is possible that one of those differences was the classification of the bat as a fowl.

You really missed the point didn't you?

quote:

---

My last line.
IMO, since translations are made to be understood by the reader, it is incorrect for any Bible translation to use the words bird or fowl (since they have specific meanings today) if "flying creatures" is available.

---

The words "bird" and "fowl" in our language do not include all flying creatures.The Hebrew word apparently has a generic meaning "flying creatures", therefore it should have been translated as flying creatures since we don't have a word (that I know of anyway) that would include bats and birds in the same category.At the time the KJV was first released in 1611, they still didn't know that bats weren't birds.The KJV has been revised to update spelling and language throughout the years, there is no excuse for this word not to have been properly updated.Just as it would be an error to leave a mispelled word, it is an error to leave an incorrect word.Just like Lucifer for morning star and Easter for Passover.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Listen. Locusts use all six of their goddamned legs to walk. Not four. Six. Is it that fucking hard to understand? 4 =/= 6.

---

Proudly attempting to Google-Bomb Kent "The Lying Dumbass" Hovind's website

​

Lying Dumbass

The Greek word that you are referring to is Areios Pagos. It is a reference to a place in Athens where the Greek mythologies teach that Ares was brought before the court of the gods for killing Halirrhothius. It literally means the hill (pagos) of Ares (Areios). Ares was the Greek god of war, but with the rise of the Roman Empire, his name was changed to Mars. The name of the hill then can be transliterated as Areopagus, translated as the Hill of Ares, or translated as Mars' Hill.

Cthulhu, You must not have access to the kjv, here's a free download site so you can re read the verse in question. It says basically is that 4 of the legs are for creepin and not jumpin. e-Sword: Free Bible Study for the PC | Downloads

The premise of this thread is that the KJV of the Bible is perfect and without error. People are pointing to what look like errors to them, and the primary method being used to show that they are not errors is to explain what the text should have said. I don't understand why anyone thinks that explaining the error makes it not an error.On a math test, if you divide when you should have multiplied, then that's an error. You can explain that you know you should have multiplied, and that you really meant to, it was just a mental slip or maybe you hit the wrong button on the calculator, but that doesn't mean it wasn't an error.In history, if you write that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1775, that's an error. You can explain that it's just a typo, but that doesn't make what you wrote without error.So I don't understand how these explanations of what the KJV really meant or what the original texts really said makes the KJV without error. If it didn't contain these errors, it wouldn't be necessary to offer these explanations.--Percy