Summations Only

The KJV is a poetic translation, not a literal translation. Putting them side-by-side: "Seven seven" from the literal translation is clearly a colloquial way of saying "seven pairs". Where the KJV says "by sevens" it can only mean "seven pairs".One pair is not the same as seven pair, therefore the Bible contains two contradictory passages.Even using your crazy idea, one pair is not the same as three pair plus one, therefore the Bible still contains two contradictory passages. This is just another way of saying you have no evidence that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Spoken like a true believer, but the evidence doesn't support such trust. What you need is evidence supporting your views accompanied by arguments that work outside of the pews of fundamentalist churches. Certainly the rest of Christianity rejects "three pair plus one".I think most philosophers of religion would say what a foolish and vain quest it is to prove (in a scientific sense, tentatively with evidence) which is the one true religion. Belief comes from the heart, not the head. You're on the right track when you reference trust while speaking about belief, but you can't equate trust to evidence because belief and proof (again, in a scientific sense) are two different things. They live in different spheres.--Percy

What you mean by "read in context" is "pretend to yourself that it means the opposite of what it says."In other words, it's a contradiction.--Percy

If this were Bible Study then you'd be right, we'd be letting the discrepancies distract us from the important message.But this isn't Bible Study. It's a discussion thread with a very specific topic, and what's important in this thread is evidence pro or con for whether the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. "Small discrepancies," otherwise known as errors or contradictions, are evidence that the Bible is not inerrant.--Percy

You're threatening judgments of God against those who do not believe as you do? How charitable.You're illustrating one of the perverse downsides of the doggedly religious, which is when they're so arrogant that they believe that they (rather than God) are the source of truth. They become impatient for God to pass judgment, so they do it themselves.--Percy

There's no need to keep stating this, we already know that this is one of the things you're hoping to prove in this thread. Instead of taking up thread space repeatedly declaring your position you would be better served by getting started proving it.--Percy

Your interpretation departs significantly from the text as written. We understand that if Acts 22:9 had instead said, "They heard the voice but did not understand," then it wouldn't be a contradiction, but it doesn't say that. It says, "They heard not the voice."We understand that if the text meant something other than what it said that the contradiction is resolved, but saying something other than what is meant is an error.--Percy

You're providing two different answers. Do the discrepant numbers of disciples make sense when "fully understood in context" (in which case you must explain a rational context), or are they unimportant discrepancies not affecting inerrancy because they are not an important part of the message (in which case you must explain the criteria for identifying important parts of the message)?--Percy

Jar will have to confirm, it's been a while since I've looked into textual analysis, but I believe the beginning chapters of Genesis are solely or mostly just two authors, but that as you get further into Genesis that other voices also emerge.--Percy

This is nit picking, no question. It's not the broad picture. But you are asserting the bible is inerrant and it's own words show otherwise. When two and seven are the same or seven is elaborated from two. When completely opposite things standing/ falling down, voice/ no voice, never angry/ eternally angry, when they no longer mean what they clearly say..then resolution of errors is clearly just making up stuff because you don't want errors.
As I mentioned, the Quran is not riddled with the same number of contradictions.
Allah is not a murderous tyrant as Yahweh is often depicted in the bible.
So you can't show a uniqueness of your religion means anything. You can't show your god exists. The bible characters many times can not be proven to exist. The writers of the books are not always what we have been led to believe.
You are in a nearly impossible position logically .
When you say you wish you could defend it better, all you mean is you wish you could make up excuses as well as some apologists do. But they don't do any better than you. You think they do but you also think making up excuses here is a solution. It's not a solution, it is the problem.

Casting aspersions and calling people names isn't a valid response.As far as everyone knows, that Moses wrote the Pentateuch is an ancient tradition with no supporting evidence. There's plenty of evidence that he didn't write it, such as the multiplicity of styles and perspectives, and the part written after his death.The split of the Jewish community caused by the exile, the gradual evolution of their traditions in different directions in the split communities, then the merging of the different traditions after the return from exile, neatly explains the textual evidence. Inerrancy ignores all the evidence and has no evidence in its support.--Percy

You're stating what you're trying to prove again. We already know your position. It's time to begin offering evidence in support of your position. You're confusing yourself with God again.--Percy

Then this is something you'll have to provide evidence for.This shouldn't have to be explained, but if you want other people to accept something you believe as true then you have to provide evidence that it is true. We have to do the same. You cannot just declare what is true and what is not.--Percy

I mean at least two writers in Genesis. I also would be interested in what Jar says though.

We have been presenting the evidence in the form of contradictions, and we're continuing to present the evidence. If you're truly interested we could get into more detail, like the differences in style, vocabulary, tradition and narrative. You're response to the evidence so far has been a non-response, in effect, "The Bible contains no contradictions, you're all haters and debunkers, and that's that." The Torah was originally an oral tradition. It wasn't written down until the exile or after, at least six or seven hundred years after Moses.--Percy

I hope I am amazed someday.But as much as Faith would like to talk about that instead, this thread isn't about the wonders to come. It's about the evidence for divine origin and inerrancy of the Bible.--Percy