Your argument is thus absurd. It's pure semantics. Let's say the Bible says "the man acted in a queer mannner" and proceeds to detail some odd behaviour, or that "the man was gay."
You come along and say, look here, the Bible is clearly wrong because everyone knows the terms, queer and gay, refer to homosexuality, and the man was a heterosexual or some such.
What the hell does this have to do with the conversation?
Your motto should be "dont confuse me witht he facts my mind is made up"
Your posts have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Either the bible is inerrant or not. Or are you trying to say the original is inerrant but translations are not?
My point is not even that the Bible is watering it down for people back then. On the contrary, I think it is mere arrogance for people today to redefine something according to their own standards, and then have the gall to say the Bible, based on the language and standards of that time, is wrong.
Either it is inerrant or not. Time has nothing to do with inerrancy.
Are you saying god used the word cud, because people thought they were ruminants and just felt it was easier than try to use something that was accurate? This god purposefully said cud even though he knew it was wrong? How nice to know the motives and thought processes of god.