Biblical contradictions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
http://www.webster.sk.ca/greenwich/bible-a.htm

​

Here's a link to an intriguing article i've come across last night...food for thoughts,perhaps?

---

I must wonder if the author of this site ever bothered to read an actual Bible, and if so, where did they get the wierd translation that they have used to make the erroneous claims that are made, and what level of education does this person have that they are unable to grasp even the most basic understanding of English grammatical text. I am not sure what "translation" of the Bible was used to support the obvious errors in this persons thinking, (maybe they simply typed up their own translation), but it is nothing close to any of the translations that I use. Does this person have even a basic understanding of Hebrew or Chaldee? I must doubt that they do, seeing as how they seem to have a very limited understanding of the proper use of the English grammatical text and how to maintain it within its' proper context. I have only a limited understanding of the Hebrew and Chaldee, but even I am able to properly utilize a concordance. This site was a waste of my valuable time. The author of this site is a walking oxymoron.

Discussions on the inerrancy of the Bible is one of contention and duplicity.Can I pick up a Bible today and find errors in it?Yes! Without a doubt!Does this mean that the Word of God is in error?No! Not even possible!Anyone can put forth what they consider a correct translation of the Bible. Joseph Smith did, and He crossed some verses out while adding others that suited his beliefs. Did this make the Word of God errant? No! It only made Joseph Smith errant!Unless one is able to read and translate the ancient manuscripts for themself, reliance upon God to provide those with honesty and integrity, who will translate and transliterate for the general populace, is the best that most will ever be able to hope for.Why else were we commanded to "Study to show thyself approved"?Enough said.And thanks for your support!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Let's see if we can pick our way through this, assuming KJV for the Bible.

​

The KJV of the Bible contains errors and contradictions.

​

The Word of God is without errors and contradictions.

​

Therefore, the KJV version of Bible is not the Word of God.

​

But the Word of God *is* contained within the original manuscripts.

​

Therefore, either the KJV was not translated from original manuscripts, or the translation is in error, or both.

​

Hmmm. So how do you know when you have a manuscript that contains God's original words? And how do you know when it's been interpreted and translated properly?

​

--Percy

---

This is where one must utilize a number of available tools. If the KJV,(your choice, not mine), contains an error in translation, does this nullify it in its' entirety? I would say no, with reservations.Does the supposed error change the intended context of the passage or does the intended meaning still follow through? Can the error be recognized and corrected?Man is a creature of error. Even in science, the god of so many, error abounds.It is therefore our responsibliity to recognize the errors, whether they be in the realm of religion or secularism, and correct them.To simply dismiss something in its' entirety due to human error is, in my opinion, a most foolish option to choose.Did NASA choose to dismiss and abandon space exploration due to the errors which caused the Challenger disaster, or did they recognize the errors, and utilize their skills to correct the problem?Whether one accepts science as the road to ultimate truth, or accepts God as the road to ultimate truth, they make an individual choice and must be fully willing to accept the consequences of that choice.When they launched Challenger, NASA chose to go with "THROTTLE UP" and the result was disastrous. Every indication they had told them they were headed in the right direction, so to speak.Their indications were wrong! Dead wrong! Shalom

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
[B]The particular Bible used isn't a concern to me. I simply chose the one favored by most Creationists. If you don't like that one pick another.***I personally use several translations in my studies. If I had to state a preference, it would be a toss-up between Rotherhams' Literal Emphasised Translation and the Messianic Authorized Version.***Jet [QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
What are the errors in Genesis that have led Creationists to erroneously conclude the earth is less than 10,000 years old?***I can only state my personal opinion on this. I would suppose that those who hold to the idea that the earth is 10,000 years old or younger do so by virtue of Adams' recorded lineage, accepting that Adams' beginning came within days of the earths beginning. I do not believe that the scriptures will support that belief.***Jet [QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
Science is tentative, so obviously it cannot be the road to ultimate truth.***I Agree***Jet Shalom

[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
[B] Well, then, answer Percy's original question:How do you recognize the original or "correct" word of God, and how do you recognize a tranlational error that has changed meaning, or not changed meaning?***Through painstaking and persistant study, research, and prayer, coupled with faith in God and guidance by the Holy Spirit.***Jet Shalom

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

Schraf asks:

---

How do you recognize the original or "correct" word of God, and how do you recognize a translational error that has changed meaning, or not changed meaning?

---

​

Jet replies:

---

Through painstaking and persistant study, research, and prayer, coupled with faith in God and guidance by the Holy Spirit.

---

​

This is just a way to approach any difficult question, not an answer. Do you have a method or any criteria?

​

--Percy

---

***I think your are punching the air here. I fully described my "method" and "criteria" in my post. What part did you not understand?***Jet Shalom [Edited to remove spurious UBB codes. --Percy]

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 05-08-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
***I personally use several translations in my studies. If I had to state a preference, it would be a toss-up between Rotherhams' Literal Emphasised Translation and the Messianic Authorized Version.***

---

​

Cool - are people still using Rotherham's? I never saw the point of it as a translation myself except as a crib when studying Hebrew. It's English seemed to be so stilted as to be virtually unreadable on its own and often gave the wrong impression. It reminded me of my friend who lectured at the Scots College in Rome and who insisted on using Scottish idioms literally translated into Italian - "this takes the biscuit" would become "cio prende il biscotto" which confused people no end and many thought he was just tirare il loro piedino.

​

The Messianic Authorized Version is new(ish) to me - is this the one published by the Messianic Bible Society? As I remember they are quite into Gematria. Does their translation / edition actually point out the (alleged) Torah codes in some way or does it just do some name replacement - YHWH Mashiach etc?

---

***You are correct that the Rotherhams' takes a little getting used to if one has grown comfortable with the modern day English translations. However, it is not as difficult to master its' style as is the 1611 KJV which is appears a bit more archaic to the average reader. As far as your inquiry about the MAV, the version I use makes no attempt to deal with Gematria and the alleged Torah codes, which although I have read about, I have as yet made no attempt, (with good reason), to either investigate, corroborate, or negate.***Jet Shalom

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
The part we don't understand is that, say, two people can believe they are guided by faith and God, spend their lives painstakingly studying and researching, etc., and come up with different interpretaions of the same material.

​

How do we decide who is correct? The interpretation which is most like our own could be correct, or not. The one most like most other people's interpretation might be correct, might not. The one which is most different from all others might be correct, or it might not be.

​

Are you saying that we just have to figure out which one feels best?

​

In that case, who's to say any of them are correct?

​

---

***I am not sure that I can answer your inquires to your, or to anyone elses satisfaction, although I fully understand your point of view. Many ask similar questions. Should I use the KJV, or the NIV, or the RSV, or the MET, etc., etc., etc.Should we follow the Holy Father and thereby follow Rome? Should we follow Kenneth Copeland so that we are better enabled to learn the technique of making withdrawls from our Heavenly bank account? Or maybe we should follow Armstrong, or Smith, or Hagan, or Schuller, or Hammond, or Batchelor, or Murray, or.......I think you can see where this is headed.Personally, by faith, I follow my heart, and I follow what I perceive to be the promptings of the Holy Spirit in dealing with all the ramifications of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. In whatever areas, in whatever practices, in whatever endeavors that I undertake, I rely on faith. Without faith, I am little more than an organic computer looking for someone to program me, and that is not something that I am willing to do.The message of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God is not a complicated one. Mankind often attempts to complicate it, but once you have removed the chaff mankind often mixes with it, the Gospel is simple and complete. God loves us more than we are able to comprehend and wants to have fellowship with us. Once we have accepted that on faith, the light is clear and bright and the complications disappear.***Jet Shalom

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
So how old *is* the earth, and by what evidence do you arrive at your conclusion?

​

--Percy

---

***I would not venture a guess at just how old the earth really is but I accept the possibility at least, that it is quite possibly as old as science has suggested. As for evidence, what I consider the most substantive evidence, you most likely would not consider as evidence at all.......the Holy Word of God Almighty!From my studies on the creation account in Genesis and elsewhere, and considering the language, terms, and phrases used, the earth had been in existance for perhaps millions of years before God created Adam. I do not put the same faith in, or reliance on, science that you most likely do. I accept the Word of God as the final authority, even when it contradicts the indications that science may supply, as science can lead us into error as well as proper conclusions.It has been stated many times that science makes no attempt, or at least is not in the habit of, proving things, and that theories are based on the most logical conclusion that the evidence points to. Because science does not, or cannot, prove anything conclusively, reliance on it as the end all of true knowledge is not possible. Science is a wonderful tool when used correctly. It has to be. It was designed by God, as were all things good and noble. Mans' misuse of that design in no way can negate the purity of Gods' design.***Jet Shalom

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

Jet writes:

---

I think your are punching the air here. I fully described my "method" and "criteria" in my post. What part did you not understand?

---

​

Hmmm. Not sure what you're missing here. You say you fully described your method and criteria in your post, but your post consisted of a single sentence which I quoted in my reply and here quote again:

​

Through painstaking and persistent study, research, and prayer, coupled with faith in God and guidance by the Holy Spirit.

​

How is this a description of the criteria and method you would use in deciding, for example, whether a manuscript contains the word of God?

​

I think it's fine if you follow your heart and the promptings of the Holy Spirit, but that's a personal and therefore subjective approach, and each individual will arrive at their own answers.

​

To be scholarly you must have a set of objective criteria and a method for applying them. If I understood your subsequent posts it sounds like you may believe a scholarly approach is doomed to find the wrong answers. But if you're determined to follow a spiritual path to answers, then how can Creationism be considered scientific?

​

--Percy

---

***Saul was a scholar, extremely well educated, and well versed in the scriptures. And yet he did not recognize the arrival of the promised Messiah, but rather he relentlessly persecuted the bride of Christ, throwing some in prison and even assisting in the execution of others.***Jet Shalom

Not being willing to put forth fruitless efforts at evangelizing those souls, (only a fool sows seeds among the thorns and expects to receive a bumper crop), whose main purpose in life seems to be to purposely disregard the Absolute Truth and Existance of God Almighty by using foolishness and flawed logic, I must state that it never ceases to amaze me how many excuses people come up with, (unbelieveably lame ones at that), to justify their not obeying God and believing His Word.Just a few of the most familiar ones are......."If God was truly a righteous God, then He wouldn't have made us with the ability to sin.", or how about this one, "There are so many translations of the Bible that there is no way to tell if it is really the Word of God."For the most part, the people who use these types of excuses have never attempted to get familiar with God. Oh, to be sure, some will claim that they have tried, or that they used to believe, but the reality is that they never gave God a fraction of the attention that they willingly give to scientists and their everchanging theories. I personally thank God that I am not burdened with sorrow for thoses who are willingly lost and prefer darkness rather than light.Perhaps the reason I am not burdened is because I have heard so many lame excuses as to why someone either doesn't believe in God, or doesn't believe the Bible is the Word of God, or doesn't believe that God would bother Himself with the lives of men and women, and yet these same people not only willingly, but gladly receive the latest theory of some scientist that they have never even heard of, let alone having ever met and spoken with them.Scripture tells us that some people just don't want anything to do with God because then they would have to acknowledge far too much and surrender much, much more. They don't like the idea of being held accountable for their actions, so they just refuse to obey, and then justify their disobedience by claiming that either God doesn't exist or that God does exist but the Bible is not His Holy Word.I wonder how many of those who espouse the belief that the Bible is not the Word of God have put forth even half the effort to study the Bible and its' history as they put forth claiming with an unflattering certainty that evolution is absolutely true. They are willing to believe what some scientists write, even though they are often times proved wrong by even more scientists, who are in turn proved wrong by even more scientists, but these same individuals are forever unwilling to accept that the Bible could be the Holy Word of God because of all the different translations, even though they have never studied Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, (which, admittedly, is not an easy task), nor have they researched the thousands of ancient copies of scripture to see if one translation or another it more suitable for study.It is just much easier for them to deny God, deny His Holy Word, and deny the sacrifice made on their behalf. I thank God daily that He has not burdened my heart for those lost souls who are quite happy to remain in their willingly ignorant state of denial. I also thank God daily that He has burdened my heart to declare the Gospel of the Kingdom of God for those that hunger and thirst after righteousness. It is those who seek life who are my burden, and I gladly bear that burden, for it is light and easy to carry. No one in their right mind would want to drag a corpse around with them. I am perfectly willing to let the dead bury the dead.Jet Shalom **********************************************************************
"If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough and often enough the people will believe it." Adolf Hitler-Darwinian Evolutionist"If I can send the flower of the German nation into the hell of war without the smallest pity for the spilling of precious German blood, then surely I have the right to remove millions of an inferior race that breeds like vermin." Adolf Hitler-Darwinian Evolutionist
**********************************************************************

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Nice sermon, but I still have all the same questions. How do you know what God is telling you? How can you tell the difference between your own thoughts and a revelation from God? How do you properly interpret God's word in the Bible so as to eliminate error and bias?

​

Jet writes:

---

"If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough and often enough the people will believe it." Adolf Hitler-Darwinian Evolutionist

​

"If I can send the flower of the German nation into the hell of war without the smallest pity for the spilling of precious German blood, then surely I have the right to remove millions of an inferior race that breeds like vermin." Adolf Hitler-Darwinian Evolutionist

---

​

So it's your view that when an evil person accepts a particular theory that that theory becomes discredited? Wasn't Timothy McVeigh a Creationist?

​

--Percy

---

***As to the first part of your post, I suggest you try reading the Bible and praying to God for understanding and enlightenment, doing so on a daily basis, and continue to do so for a period of one year. I am convinced that all of the questions you posed will be answered. After all, what is one single year when compared to eternity. If after that short period of time you still deny the validity of the Word of Almighty God, I may have a few questions for you.As to the second part of your post, concerning a discredited theory, my reply is no. A theory is not discredited due to its' acceptance by an evil person. On that same note, neither is it validated due to its' acceptance by an otherwise brilliant scientist.***Jet Shalom "If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough and often enough the people will believe it." Adolf Hitler.......Darwinian Evolutionist

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
[B]Since you concede the fallacy of guilt by association, why are you continuing to use it?***O.K. You lost me on that one. Unless, of course, Percy could possibly be guilty of actually using a strawman tactic.***JetOriginally posted by Percipient:
This is a science discussion. If the source of some of your evidence is God then you need to give him a scientific foundation. As I keep repeating, my interest in this debate stems from the Creationist threat to science education. I'm not really concerned about someone going to a school board and saying they know the Biblical account is correct because God answered their prayers and that therefore Creationism should be taught in science class.***There is no need to play games here, Percy. Archeology has proven the Bible correct over, and over again, but no one has ever been able to disprove it, although many have tried. Archeology has confirmed again and again what individual scientists and archeologists have said was pure fantasy and fairy tale. If there is a "Creationist threat to science education", as you put it, then the threat is that the fallacy of evolution will finally be dismissed as the total bunk that even many scientists are now admitting that it is. If evolution had any real validity in science, then nothing could threaten it. But as it is, the more studies that are done, and the more that science advances, the more ridiculous evolution is shown to be. I suppose if I was an evolutionist, I would feel threatened too.***Jet Shalom ------------------
"If you tell a lie long enough, and loud enough, and often enough, the people will believe it." Adolf Hitler.......Darwinian Evolutionist

Originally posted by Percipient:The Bible is full of both history and myth. Much of it is about real places and real events, much of it is not.***Please feel free to point out both.......if you can.***JetOriginally posted by Percipient:
There is no evidence consistent with the six days of Creation, and no geological evidence of a world-wide flood ever, let alone within the last 10,000 years.***Major Tinman Percy!***Jet http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.htmlhttp://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp***I would suppose that you are able to offer all the necessary evidence, (studies, data, reports, etc.), to support such an outlandish statement while negating any and all or the contrary evidence.***Jet***Answer this question, if you are able. Why do earths societies differ on the number of days in a month as well as differ in the number of months in a year but all are in agreement of a seven day week? Could it possibly have something to do with the six days of creation plus a day of rest that God ordained in Genesis?
Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmm! ***Jet Shalom ------------------
"If you tell a lie long enough, and loud enough, and often enough, the people will believe it." Adolf Hitler.......Darwinian Evolutionist

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Getting back to the original question, if science is based upon building frameworks of understand around bodies of information and evidence, while your approach is based upon revelation, prayer and reflection, then how can you claim your views should be taught as science?

​

--Percy

---

***Please refer me to the post where I stated that "my views" should be taught as science.***Jet Shalom ------------------
"If you tell a lie long enough, and loud enough, and often enough, the people will believe it." Adolf Hitler.......Darwinian Evolutionist