The Inerrancy of the Bible

It's funny that this misconception still inflects our vocabulary for different moods; we still use the words "sanguine", "melancholy", "phlegmatic", and er, well, "choleric", which isn't really a mood.I found this wiki article very interesting, especially in regards to the association of the four humours with four totemic spirits: Humorism - Wikipedia

Beetles have 6 legs, none of which are specific for leaping.

So what you're saying is, the only inerrant Bible is the one none of us can read. What the hell good is that?

They're not above them; they're behind them.

As you can see from this image the hind legs attach at a lower sagittal elevation than the forelegs:So, no. They're not above; they're below and behind.

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?

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

Oh, don't get me wrong. Cultural context can shade and influence meaning, to a great extent.But it can't reverse meaning. It can't make a passage that says 40,000 mean 4,000, or (as was offered to me on another discussion board once) take a passage that says "whosoever strikes your right cheek, turn to him your left" and render its meaning "take vengence when evil is done to you." It can't change the word "above" into "behind."When you offer "cultural context" as a way to smooth over difficulties in the Bible, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the cultural connotation you're proposing actually existed at the time, then you're just making up ad hoc explanations because you can't bear to see your beloved Bible be wrong about something. You're saying that the Bible says that insects have legs besides their feet? How does that make any sense?

If you don't believe that the Bible as we have it now is the literal, inerrant, eternal Word of God, then I have no issue with you.But if you believe that the Bible was dictated word-for-word by God to its human authors, then the numbers should come out right, because why would God need to approximate?

Are you talking about the Greek scientists who not only knew that the Earth was a sphere, but were able to estimate its diameter within 1% accuracy? Those guys?

What evidence do you have of that particular cultural connotation beyond its necessity to explain these discrepancies? Such evidence would include other contemporaneous Hebrew writings that use the same terminology in an unambiguous situation.