The Inerrancy of the Bible

What kind of animal is a bat? According to Leviticus 11:13-20, it's a bird.Please explain what thorough study one could make of the passage in question in order to show that this is not an error; that bats are in fact birds.

quote:

---

11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
11:15 Every raven after his kind;
11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

---

The Hebrew word is irrelevant. 36Christians specifically identified the King James version as being perfect all on its own. The KJV is in English. Yeah, the English language says something different.

It would seem that way, yes. Thanks for tossing up another error; insects are not fowl either. See... you seem to be saying that because they called something else fowl that isn't, that means it's not an error. And that's so freakin' nuts I don't even know where to start.They can call a bat or an insect fowl all they please. They can call them hermaphrodite monkeys with eight fingers where their nipples should be, for that matter. Either way, it's an error to do so."Fowl" and "flying creature" are not interchangable terms. To use "fowl" when you mean "flying creature" is an error. Sure... it's quite clear that they messed up.

Okay, now I'm just wondering how someone can read a post that points out an error in a text, and respond by saying, "Oh, so you think the text has no errors!"This is why the majority of believers make me shake my head in amazement. Which means, of course, that the translators messed up. Which means that the KJV is not inerrant.What part of this idea is giving you trouble?

No, but apparently you believe in putting words in my mouth. What does your god have to say about bearing false witness in this fashion, out of curiosity?There is an error in the KJV text that is possibly due to a mistranslation from the Hebrew. It does not logically follow that the Hebrew and Greek versions are perfect. Since the subject at hand was the KJV, I brought up a glaring error in the KJV, and didn't try to sidetrack things into other versions, as you are attempting to do.(At this point, I edited out a bit that, although extremely funny, was pretty gross, even for me.)This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 01-12-2005 13:39 AM

Bret, let's nail this right down to the ground, okay? If you are talking about anything other than the King James Version, then what you are saying is irrelevant.The original poster was asking for errors in the King James Version. There are plenty of other threads on this forum which deal with general, cross-version, cross-language biblical inerrancy.If you wish to discuss one of these versions, head to one of those threads, or start your own. The topic at hand is errors in the King James Version.

---

"Egos drone and pose alone, Like black balloons, all banged and blown
On a backwards river, infidels shiver In the stench of belief
And tell my mama I'm a hundred years late
I'm over the rails and out of the race
The crippled psalms of an age that won't thaw ringing in my ears"
-Beck

Well, I say you have to include Jack Kirby's run on Fantastic Four. Sure, it's a totally different text, but I want to include it in the discussion; therefore we have to.And on that note, Galactus could never have fit on Noah's Ark. So there you go, more errors. And we are talking about the one written in English. Again, what is so hard to get about this?To say that the textus receptus must be included in a discussion of the KJV is like saying that "Ten Things I Hate About You" is one of the greatest literary works of all time, because "Taming of the Shrew" is so good.Source material is irrelevant when discussing the merits of a text. If the text doesn't hold up to scrutiny, then it simply doesn't hold up.

Okay. I classify the word "telephone" to mean "african-american haberdasher".Wow, that's fun! And apparently, I'm not wrong. I'm simply using a different classification system. Ut! Before arguing this position, please go check this for sure. Arguing on "probably"s is a really crap way to go about proving your point.They did know back then, for instance, that bats don't lay eggs, and that birds do.This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 01-12-2005 16:55 AM

Does "without errors" work for you? If not, you should probably take that complaint up with the English language. Insofar as it is a book about the supernatural. Of course, so is "Needful Things"...This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 01-14-2005 13:51 AM

---

"Egos drone and pose alone, Like black balloons, all banged and blown
On a backwards river, infidels shiver In the stench of belief
And tell my mama I'm a hundred years late
I'm over the rails and out of the race
The crippled psalms of an age that won't thaw ringing in my ears"
-Beck