A listing of the contradictions and errors in the bible.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:
[B]Has this file been shown here before?Subject: A List of Biblical Contradictions
By: Jim Meritt
Date: 1992-07-24

​

WS: Such lists abound in skeptic/agnostic/atheist websites, along the lines of Burr's book. Each and every one of them and more have been answered in books, as well as online in many forums and of course in Jewish and Christian websites for years. Yet, there is no respect for truth among the critics who just move on with their long lists seeking to discourage yet another group of beleivers, many of whom won't guess those "errors" are only poor Bible exegesis. That is all they are- confusion. Actual Bible scholars, Jewish, Christian, or others even among secular students, don't come up with those claims since they have the knowledge gained from study, knowing how the facts tie together. Scripture interprets scripture, one of the essentials of properly sorting the original message of the various contexts. There are no errors in the Bible as accepted by the churches, but there are modern versions that do have much error attempting to fit the scriptures to current slang language and reformed socio/cultural concepts. Such error is easily discerned through comparison with oldest manuscript sources. Just simple reference to lexicons often settles supposed errors.

​

Let's test this thread topic. Let Nos prepare his 10 favorite "errors", one post a day. I will attempt to answer them. That would be a fair sample of the list, especially if 100% of them are proven as not true errors or contradictions. I predict there is not enough knowledge of the Bible to select the most difficult choices. I further propose the list is supplied without personal investigation of the claims, or knowledge enough to have discovered one of them personally. As is common on other forums, the list is posted as pasted from skeptic websites, assuming it is valid challenge. It would be unfair for Nos to ignore such an outcome by simply going on ad infinitum with more sets. When I answer, I'll indicate my own work, and supply references to websites or books that deal with particular claims of errancy. When the ten are finished let's decide whether the answers appear flawed, and if not, decide whether/why it is necessary to explore all the rest of the list if the initial test is 100% for inerrancy. How large a sample would the majority here require? All of the questions would take months or years to deal with if other lists are added, so a reasonable sample size is needed. Statistically, ten out of ten is very powerful, especially if the ten are chosen as most difficult.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Gee, now that smell is over here. Good thing I brought my clothes pin with me. Snip, awww, now that is better.

---

WS: As I predicted, the only response will be such juvenile tactics as that. This speaks LOUDLY of the sophistry of posting that list without being able to defend it. Empty, false accusations leave one a fool when one doesn't answer the challenge he is a false witness. If you appeared in a court of law doing that, refusing to support your accusations, the case would be dismissed, followed by tort against the accuser. Shall this thread then be locked? I declare it dead for all practical purposes. Battle won without a shot fired! Interesting. One of the main defenses of evolution theory is attempted discreditation of the Bible. That under foot, maybe it's time to visit other threads.Shall the accuser now rely on friends to come to his defense? If so, let the proxy defender bring shame upon the defended and him/her self.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Time for another clothes pin. What kind of crap has this guy been eating?

---

WS:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Yes, I definitely think that he has been eating a lot of crap.

---

WS: Take a little advice. That is a highly irrational statement based on pure opinion based on no evidence at all. I could begin to assume you are representative of evolutionists here, since apparently few object to your line of reasoning. Or more likely people are ignoring this topic now that they are treated to such a response as that above. You do damage to yourself and to your cause.You are demonstrating that your personal knowledge about the list posted in post #1 is probably non-existent, that you can't defend what you presented. You should stick to topics you know a little about. I suggest closure of the topic, else your personal credibility will be neutralized time and again, damaging your impact elsewhere, wherever uyou go. This hit and run tactic is not appropriate, nor is there a show of support for the forum rules by not supporting what is posted in a blatant manner. Act your age. If you are a 13 year old, then try to act like an adult anyway while here. Emulation is possible even without experience or understanding of adult behavior.

Nos: "Plus, he also thinks that you're going to hell for being a heretic as well because you accept Evoluton."WS: Only one thing guarantees a place in hell, and that is unbelief concerning the savior Jesus Christ. Other beliefs are merely indicators of a person's position with God concerning eternal destiny. Evolution theory belief in itself is not evil. It becomes evil when it is used to supplant the truth of the Word of God which defines who is condemned already for their unbelief. After all, the theory is but an explanation of how most scientists think life evolved from more primitive life forms. I know several Christians who I think are not condemned becaue of their belief in evolution, being 'theistic evolutionists' for lack of the probably proper term, each of them holding different views, as do most evolutionists among school teachers disagree on many points. But, those Christians have not compromised their biblical beliefs, holding onto evolution theory as a lesser belief they would doubtless discard if forced to choose between the two as absolute truth.

quote:
Talking 'bout salvation claims... Strangely, I happen to adhere to a view that someone can be sent to hell if he/she accepts any substitute for God. That includes Jesus. He's not God to us Muslims.WS: You have opened the door to fair rebuttal. I am prepared for you. What is or is not god to Muslims has no weight with Christians or Jews. Abraham worshipped Jehovah, the Lord God. Islam insults Abraham. If any substitution, it was the adoption of the pagan Moon god "Allah", surely rolling Abraham over in his grave. It took the forgeries and myths of Muhammad to twist the truth, many cenuries after the Torah stood unchallenged. Where was "Allah" all those centuries, failing to reveal himself to Ishmael and to many generations of his sons?Islam insults one of their very own prophets, Jesus, refusing to accept His words. Jesus and His disciples made claims which the muslims deny, therefore making their claim he is one of their prophets a lie, for any prophet offering untruth was a false prophet then and now. Can't Islam discern their prophets from the false? The truth is Jesus is NOT a prophet of Islam, for Jesus supported no false religion, but served the living God, His Father in heaven. He can't be a prophet of Islam since that would make Him a liar. He declines the offer, fellow. Find another prophet. Better advice, change religions. You are drawn to the false prophets. Listen to the true ones, those of the Holy Bible.

"Dear Andya, Dear wordswordsman
Interesting stuff, guys.
If I understand properly than both "christians" and "muslims" worship the same god."WS: Not so. Check out a definition article that clearly separates the two as not at all the same entity. http://www.answering-islam.org/Index/index.html
Scroll down and click on Allah.Then follow the link to "Moon God" or look it up in the index. See for yourself what that debate is about. Regardless of that outcome, "Allah" is not Jehovah, nor did "Allah" have anything to do with the writing of the Bible. Jehovah was the God Abraham worshipped thousands of years before Muhammad wrote about "Allah" and his revised historical accounts. There was no Islam until centuries after Christianity was established, long after the Torah stood unchallenged.I'll discuss the balance of your post in answering Andya.

"John 1:25 And they [[asked him, and] said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?"WS: John 1:25
And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?WS: Good English use would tell you "neither" has to do with a choice between two, being a grammatically singular word. There was no third reference to another person not named, or it would have read "nor that prophet". That wouldn't make a lick of sense since there is no hint of any third prophet the Pharisees expected, nowhere in Scripture, certainly not within that discussion. They were expecting a returned Elijah who was taken up without seeing death. They had but two choices, either John was the promised, expected Messiah (rendered "Christ" here, but the Pharisees would have said "mashiyach" if this account were written in Hebrew, or if in Aramaic the equivalent), or he was the prophet Elijah. The word "Elias" is from Helias, of Hebrew origin ('Eliyah); Helias (i.e. Elijah), an Israelite :- Elias. The problem is the transliteration from Hebrew to Greek. If John was actually either one of those two prophets, they would not hinder the baptizing. Eventually John was indeed hindered, but not until after he finished what he was sent forth to do.The reason they zeroed in on those two names was because they were challenging John's baptizing. They were accustomed to Jewish converts made by ceremonial cleansings, but requiring an order from the Sanhedrin, or three magistrates/doctors of the law. They challenged John who must then be of great stature to bypass Jewish authority and ignore Pharisee practices. The idea was for John to stop doing it if he was neither expected prophet. But John identified who the subject person of their inquiry was, one who already walked among them, whom John identified when Jesus came to be baptized. There is no way any reference to a future person could be inferred."If I'm not misquoting there, the verse is supposed to be about the Pharisees asking John the Baptist (Prophet Yahya to us), about his identity if he is not 1)Christ (he is clearly not Jesus Christ) 2)Elias (not sure who this is but I think John is not Elias) or 3) THAT PROPHET."Who could THAT PROPHET be? Prophet Muhammad?"WS: Very poor exegesis of Scriptures. You would need a direct prophecy in the Old Testament naming him, or make Muhammad the same as either Messiah or Elijah, then prove it. But you can't do that since Islam makes Muhammad a stand-alone prophet, not someone else. To attempt to insert Muhammad in the Bible prophecy would be no difference in religion than Bahai, or any of among the many who came and do come claiming the same things Muhammad did, making many Christs, all false ones, in every generation.Maybe. In Isaiah 29:11--12 I found an interesting scene:
29:11
And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:29:12
And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.If I am not misquoting there, this verse is about Isaiah's vision of a sealed book which cannot be read. This scene is recorded in the history of Prophet Muhammad's life also.WS: Read it carefully in context. The reference was to the vision that appeared AS such a sealed book. There is no literal sealed book referred to, but the concept is used to explain the nature of the vision.

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: Good English use would tell you "neither" has to do with a choice between two, being a grammatically singular word.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Funny thing is, it isn't modern English. It also didn't start out as English. It has translated. If you read the Greek, the word used for 'nor' in the above sentence, is also the word used for 'neither'WS: It's one thing to be able to go find the Greek, another to know which Greek translation is the most accurate, and quite another for any one non-biblical scholar to handle the Greek and its grammatical nuances better that the host of life-time scholars who have come to agreement on the English translation.The standard for English grammar has been for centuries found in the KJV. The use of neither and nor has not changed, though their use is becoming archaic probably people are not comfortable with them, not knowing the proper use anyway.As for the Greek word "oute" being used interchangeably, its use and meaning is based on the plurality or singularity of the subject. Singular- translated neither in the English equivalent of the definition. Plural- translated nor in the English equivalent, requiring two objects, one before, one after.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You would need a direct prophecy in the Old Testament naming him
----------------------------------------------------------------------Funny thing.... you type 'Jesus' into the search box at Blueletterbible.org and all of the verses returned are in the NT. How's that for naming names?WS: "Jesus" is the translation/combined English transliteration of the Greek Iesous, ee-ay-sooce'; of Hebrew origin [Hebrew 3091 (Yehowshuwa`)]; Jesus (i.e. Jehoshua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites :- Jesus. There was no direct Greek word to transmit that name from the Hebrew. God knows who we speak of, and so do you. Anglicans and many other prople groups for that matter, can't even pronounce Yehowshuwa (approx. "wow-u-shoo-ah") without some tutoring, while Spanish/Hispanic people can't handle the "J", making a "Hey" of that, saying "Hayzus"- best they can utter. There are many of the peculiar Greek words in the NT you won't find in the OT, like "Christ". What would you look for in reference to Christ in the OT?

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What would you look for in reference to Christ in the OT?
----------------------------------------------------------------------Jesus. You said 'named by name'WS: All I have to say about the earlier part of your post is that there is absolutely no reference to a third prophet, the only references being to either Christ or Elijah. The KJV rendering captures that, as determined by up to 70 scholars who made lifetime careers of studying the Scriptures. You apparently don't know the history of some of those modern translations.You failed to answer my question properly. You would properly look for the English "messiah" in the OT to find reference to the Greek "Christ".FWIW, for the first 150 years of American public education the KJV Bible was the English textbook, gradually replaced by the readers based on the Bible. Since then the language has changed dramatically, but the technical grammatical rules remain the same. Only popular useage has changed, and education has changed to deal with it.

"Are you sure your site is unbiased? It seems like a group that has nothing better to do than oppose the progress and spread of Islam might not be terribly interested in giving an accurate picture of the truth. I've seen these types before, every large religion has them."WS: It might behoove you to go check out the "progress" of the spread of Islam independently then go decide whether that site is accurate or not. While you are at it, find out the mechanism by which virtually every nation that is Muslim got that way. I found they all became Muslim through subjugation at the point of knives, swords, and other enforcements. Their ways are accurately described in the site I linked. No people has freely adopted Islam through the process of inquiry and being convinced through preaching. Militarily weak nations had it shoved down their throats. It is too easy to prove accuracy by comparing to the majority of other authoritative sources, including some books by former Islamic professors of Islam who have been converted to Christianity, who are stepping up to the plate exposing Islam. There are some startling works in print, others on their way, causing quite a stir in the world.
I finished a month ago "Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith" by Robert Spencer I started it around our church and have begun a storm of concern!I've spent years debating Muslims, following probably hundreds of links, reading books, and learning from ex-Muslims in recovery groups designed to reorganize Muslims dealing with the shock of discovering the truth about the religion. I belong to two such Yahoogroups. Mostly we find a common element of people having been in it without knowing the extent of the teachings, offering little or no technical knowledge to deal with Islamic doctrine, but I do gain a good understanding of the lives they lived. All in all I find that site to be quite accurate and revealing, currently supported by news stories, and not at odds with neutral encyclopedic articles and history texbooks. The facts of Islam have been around a long time, easily corroborated with a little research.I find an increasing trend among online Muslim websites trying to negate the really startling parts of the Quran as being akin to Christians not following the laws of Moses. They attempt to quiet fears Islam still includes ongoing Jihad, that Islam is now a peaceful religion. I have yet to find one of them willing to reveal to me that message from "Allah". It appears made up. The analogy to the Old Testament is faulty. That reference proclaimed within its own context a new covenant was coming (Jeremiah 31:31
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of JudahThen the New Testament clearly explained the Christian relationship to the Mosaic law. The Quran doesn't do that. The references to the Jihad principle are interspersed throughout that work, being without end, everlasting, with no indication of a change of mind from "Allah". There are no Islamic-sanctioned "New Testament" Muslims that are excused from the actual teachings of the Quran. Such "moderates" are hated by most of the real Islamic world, themselves in danger of severe corrections. My pointis that version of Islam is not backed by any holy text, and is offered up sort of like the modern versions of Judaism and liberal humanistic Christian sects are today. The Quran is largely not available to the average Muslim, like the Bible was for most of the time left in the possession of the clerics. Good Muslims learn the ten pillars, pray, and support the religion in general ignorance. Those who do study it and know the full revelation are called fundamentalists, but they are actually just fully practicing Muslims exercising unfettered Islam. Islamic clerics dish out the things they need the people to know, able to add in concepts not found in the Quran, such as the supposed rewards of 70 virgins for each martyr. It's a great deception sweeping around the world. Find out more at
Answering Islam, A Christian-Muslim Dialog and Apologetic
Another interesting one is http://www.islamexposed.com/
and http://members.aol.com/oldtestmt/islam01.htm
and islam-in-focus ’ ’Explore the Quaran for yourself:
http://www.stg.brown.edu/webs/quran_browser_message.html
Dynamic DNS Home UsersUse the search engines to discover what it says about Christians, Jesus, Jews, unbelievers (of Islam), or read the really rough ones already picked out at islam-in-focus ’ ’. Think they are out of context? Go check it out. Do Muslims say the problem is the version selected? Ask them if they know they have the original manuscript. They will always say we are using the wrong version or misinterpreting, just as they say we misinterpret the Bible. Learn about your own destiny if you don't accept Islam once you read and know the "truth". If you read and learn then reject, you are twice damned, a legal target for any fundamentalist to take you out of this world, AND burn in hell. Ah, such love.....

"Got original texts?"WS: Do you? How do you know what you have is "original" when your own cleric scholars dispute over that? It isn't necessary to referto any original texts. All the work is already done many times over. How many times must people pour over each word, bringing it into a modern language? You make the same case of clerics of old who refused to allow the Bible into the hands of average people, making it an intellectual exercise, couching it in Latin or French, allowing only portions let out in sermons. The fact is there is enough accuracy in translations to derive from them what the original message was."Then we can discuss some of this."WS: Cop-out, pure and simple. Whatever version of Quran I get hold of will be denied, right?"You see, it's this translation and retranslation of the Bible that caused this. Even you can't trust your own sacred texts because of that."WS: We already know which translations were translated from others rather than going to oldest manuscripts. We have enough history to know which versions were done accurately, making good foundations for later versions/translations. Certainly we trust certain Bibles. We know the LB is a poor pharaphrase, but does give a good overview of the Bible."As for the Answering Islam page about Allah (your reply to peter borger), it's a good monograph of His description. However, I fail to see why you think they're different... found no reason for it in the page. The page documents that the name 'Allah' was known before Prophet Muhammad's time. This is certainly what Muslims believe: Allah has revealed himself to humanity long before Prophet Muhammad's time, especially through prophets to the Children of Israel."WS: You acknowledge the site is accurate. Good. Maybe we can come to some conclusions eventually. Please comment on this article:
http://answering-islam.org/lovesus.html"*The OT prophesy: I agree with John[evc]'s stance. Jesus was not mentioned either in the OT. So it's a stalemate. Or you got evidence?"WS: Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."I realize this will probably set off a discussion about "virgins" and the mystery of this prophecy within a prophecy, but I've already dealt with it dozens of times, so fire away.Matthew 1:23
"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."That name was clearly associated with the child Jesus, Yeshua, the Christ, each name having a special meaning towards His mission on earth.

"Allah is in fact a different name for Yahweh, the war god, kept in the ark of the covenant, released to destroy the enemies of the jews.
The same god who in the old testemant was not quite the nice old man portrayed by Jesus and the Renessaince."WS: So I'm to believe that throughout the entire record of the Bible, Jehovah (Yahweh) forgot to drop that name you say is His?
Out of all those MANY names used to link to God, that ONE never once emerged!"Much like angels who were originally the messangers of god, or soldiers of god when needed. In fact Jacob got the name Isreal(wrestles with god) beause he wrestled with god's messanger."WS: Wrong. Not BECAUSE he wrestled, but because of this: Genesis 32:28
"And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed."Israel: Heb. Yisra'el, yis-raw-ale'; from Hebrew 8280 (sarah) and Hebrew 410 ('el); he will rule as God; Jisral, a symbolical name of Jacob; also (typically) of his posterity :- Israel."If you would really like to get down to it, the argument can be made that both Islam and Christianity are both perversions of judiusm. Neither ascribing to the original covenants(such as circumsiscion) and Judiusm originally had no notion of hell or heaven. Our time was solely here on earth, serving our god(one of many)."WS: A lot of off-the-wall comment. Sheesh. What to do? Itwould take too long to sort that one out. Maybe if you would present one at a time....point is, you are not supported at all there."Which brings up an interesting question. If there was only one TRUE god, why do we need a commandment telling us not to worship other gods if there are no other gods?"WS: Ah, a short answer question. Many idols existed which men worshipped as though gods. Most were of wood or stone, never changing, never speaking, unable to help one iota. God knew he futility of worshipping them, but men needed to be told not to do it. Sometimes a whole lifetime is wasted before they figure it out on their own."And how do christians resolve the changing nature of god from the OT to the NT?"WS: We don't have to resolve that, since there was no change in his nature. He changed some of his judgments against Israel, decided not to do certain acts again, flood the entire earth again, etc, but never changed his nature. He is the same yesterday, today and for ever.

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: All I have to say about the earlier part of your post is that there is absolutely no reference to a third prophet, the only references being to either Christ or Elijah.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Wrong again. It seems to be a pattern. w_fortenbury has shown this claim to be false.WS: He supported my case, not yours. He verified the object of the case, "that prophet" referring to a choice between Christ and Elijah, the prophecies definitely indicating Christ. John pointed them to the Christ, Jesus walking among them THEN, not hundreds of years later, a sand pirate named Muhammad.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The KJV rendering captures that, as determined by up to 70 scholars who made lifetime careers of studying the Scriptures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, and these 70 scholars trump all the other scholars who disagree? That is hardly sporting. No comment upon having your arrogance called on the issue of the word 'nor'? No comment upon being shown to be full of blustering hot-air? You will continue to trumpet the KJV?WS: I'll address that issue below. Meanwhile, yes, the KJV is my choice of most trusted Bible. Have you been to Translations ?quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You apparently don't know the history of some of those modern translations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Gee, in fact I do. The problem, as I see it, is that you've made the KJV sacrosanct. Any deviation is simply wrong, the sources be damned.WS: Some of the most modern versions are in fact full of damnable verses. No such distortions in the KJV.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You failed to answer my question properly. You would properly look for the English "messiah" in the OT to find reference to the Greek "Christ".
----------------------------------------------------------------------Right.... isn't that a clever ploy. Insist that Muhammed be named by name, yet Jesus can be named by a general term. You are missing the point.WS: I don't think so. Jesus was clearly linked to the OT through his other name Emmanuel, and the many variations of Yeshua, Jehovah saves. The case for Muhammad is non-existent, with not one shred of reference to that name.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since then the language has changed dramatically, but the technical grammatical rules remain the same.
----------------------------------------------------------------------You mean like not beginning a sentence with 'and'? Or putting 'neither' before 'nor'? This is crap. The language has changed since Kng James.WS: Resitance is futile. This might smart a bit, finding you are completely wrong. Nothing has changed except for people not knowing the rules of grammar like they once did.First, this from Bartleby.com: "You should follow both conjunctions in either or (or neither nor ) constructions with parallel elements. If you follow either with a verb and an object, or must have a verb and an object as well. Thus you should say She can either take the examination offered to all applicants or ask for a personal interview but not She can take either the examination offered to all applicants or ask for a personal interview. Similarly, you should say You may have either the ring or the bracelet but not You may either have the ring or the bracelet."From http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/conjunctions.htm"A frequently asked question about conjunctions is whether and or but can be used at the beginning of a sentence. This is what R.W. Burchfield has to say about this use of and:There is a persistent belief that it is improper to begin a sentence with And, but this prohibition has been cheerfully ignored by standard authors from Anglo-Saxon times onwards. An initial And is a useful aid to writers as the narrative continues.
Authority: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage
edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996.
Used with the permission of Oxford University Press.The same is true with the conjunction but. A sentence beginning with and or but will tend to draw attention to itself and its transitional function. Writers should examine such sentences with two questions in mind: (1) would the sentence and paragraph function just as well without the initial conjunction? (2) should the sentence in question be connected to the previous sentence? If the initial conjunction still seems appropriate, use it."Now where were we?Oh yes, John 1:25
And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?I suggested that if there was a third object in there, the word "nor"
would have been required to qualify "neither" with an object other than "Christ" or "Elijah". There is no other object inferred or stated. Since only "neither" is used, it could only refer to the two stated objects, distinguishing between them. Got it straight?

"Why trust a book that claims the Earth to be flat?"---"Plus, there are the many contradictions and errors in it as well, but he can explain those away with apologetic interpretations(READ: Lies, distortions, and spectulation). It is irrelevant if it is different in the so-called "original" manuscipts and scrolls since most Christians can neither read hebrew or have free access to them, nor are bible scholars."WS: I issued a fair-play challenge to this fellow "Nos" who runs away like a scared rabbit, who has been exposed now as an accuser not willing to stand and take judgment. He needs to be judged in this life, that maybe he will avoid it in THE Judgment. I find this type of human flees with his list of false accusations to new places hoping to find gullible people who will be awe-struck at his "wisdom". He leaves a trail of shame.I think his manner of accusation with no accountability is deplorable, not at all in sync with the good intentions of most of the people here. When I came by here and witnessed his blathering, I had to stop and deal with him. Now I find he "pleads the fifth" or whatever he's doing.
New Challenge with options.
1. Face your inward turmoil, admit you are confused, try to work this out. (the most graceful, honest solution)
2. Act like a man instead of a sissy girlyboy, and face me with on-topic replies. (takes a little knowledge and fortitude)
3. Simply admit yur error and ask to close the thread. (cop-out)
4. Drop out in total defeat, shamed, leaving the rest of us to clean up your mess. (nobody wants that)There is no difference in the oldest known copies of manuscripts, and no known original letters. The Dead Sea Scrolls, which had been preserved a very long time, verify that what was already accepted as authentic copy was indeed authentic, not tampered with over the millennia. Nothing changed. The copiers were faithful.It isn't necessary to read Hebrew to obtain the message of the Scriptures. To insist on that is the essence of gnosticism. In fact, Jews, Christians, and secular universities have offered online Hebrew courses (mostly free of charge), Hebrew lexicons abound (free, by subscroiption, and on CD for a fee), and there are many Bible helps and study textbooks in bookstores that confirm each other as to the Hebrew/Greek characters and wording, along with the word-for-word translations (leaving the reader to fill in to make cogent sentences)- all manner of helps available. I have learned all that is interesting, but doesn't reveal another gospel message. The scholars of the ages agree. The differences are language-oriented, being a problem of transmitting communication. THAT is not error or contradiction. One has but to read a passage in several versions, then study the differences according to the context around those passages (exegesis). Then, if a person concludes the Bible teaches the earth is flat, realize you have a problem with comprehension and get someone to teach you how to study the Bible. A person concluding from the Bible the earth is flat will also probably have difficulty using an encyclopedia or cookbook.
There is no statement in the Bible the earth is flat. As close as a person can get is reference to cardinal directions, which are communicated in flat-plane terms even now since people still can't think in terms of curvature of the earth. No cartographer or engineer today could have augmented the wording chosen in 1611 without destroying the actual intended messagesaround supposed statements the earth is flat. The term "four corners" of the earth simply stood for "north, east, south, and west", i.e., rising of the sun to setting, north star and across. It signified the width and height, the scope of something, like the land of Israel, or all of earth including that not seen but known is there.The only problem with use of the Bible is the interpretations. Too many readers never get around to learning the rules of interpretation. They are easy to locate on the web, and most homiletics textbooks do a fine job of teaching how to derive proper sermons by proper interpretation.