another_poster

Since the bible actually allows for differences in beliefs on some topics then anything non-essential is open to have different beliefs without it being a problem. If you disagree then you are questioning the integrity of the bible and therefore questioning God's integrity! No you need to accept he has answered and outlined the consistent way he approaches scripture. If you care to read he explains his approach. It is a very consistent approach. It is just an approach different to yours but that is no reason to respond the way you have. anyone who cares to actually read what is written can see that it is part of an answer to a question Connor was asked.

A claim of an error has been made in this thread and not one person has addressed it. One person (Butero) addressed a different claim but that is the closest anyone has gone to addressing it. Talking about all posts up to and including this one (#30) I never said any such thing. That is the way you have chosen to read it. I'm not surprised as that is the normal conclusion people leap to. It is always based on assumptions though as opposed to what is written. Didn't think I would need to as it is clearly stated. Paul even says it is not from God. It is only a small bit however the fact that it is there shows that God did not say write exactly this. If he did then Paul chose to ignore God and put his personal opinion in anyway in which case then Paul's writings would have to be viewed with a lot of doubt. Note I am not saying we should doubt the inspiration of Paul's writings.

Once again you only talk about personalities when I specified it was not just personality. It is an actual personal opinion. Your theory that perhaps God took over them so they did not know they were writing or what they were writing just makes no sense. Or are you claiming God suddenly said Oh I'm a bit tired right now so I 'll take a break long enough so they can put their personal opinion in and then I'll continue after that! Your theory also means that God is forgetful. He wrote something and then goes oh yeah I forgot this Oops and adds it in. These examples are all found in Paul's letters. Once again inerrency and inspired are not the same thing. I said the scriptures were inspired by God. Sorry I accidently deleted the other part of your post. However I would say if you think one needs to suspend logic to see a contradiction then you should read more carefully. It says 'I WILL make' followed by and out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field. I really don't understand how one has to suspend logic to see the word WILL as in future tense and then assume what the OP has assumed. I would suggest because you have your view already when you read the passage you have your view in mind and that is why you can not see it. You are not reading the passage as if you don't know what it means. I can easily see how the OP came to that conclusion. However I happily acknowledge that someone has finally addressed that claim which is great. I no longer feel the need to call people out for saying there are no contradictions when nobody had addressed the claim made. As it does not affect my beliefs one way or the other I won't be defending that view. I just wanted someone to address it for the sake of integrity.

Inspired does not mean without error. See to believe the bible is without error there are only two possible options. 1. That those who wrote scriptures are infallible. I can not believe this 2. God told them word for word exactly what to write. I can not believe this because we see that people put their own opinions into what they wrote. Did God really say write this word and now put your personal opinion in then write this word. Just can't believe God did that. Your first reason is not logical as The bible is full of people that God used and not one of them was infallible. In fact people that are infallible dont exsist. And your second reason dosent hold water either, I dont see peoples opinion in the bible. Quote a scripture where someones opinion is present. The only part of the bible thats wrong/infallible/whatever word you want to use, is the parts where man has corrupted the translation or words do not translate word for word. If one would invest the time to study, really study, prayerfully study, then what I am saying becomes academic. As for errors, it would be interesting if you could list an error thats not one from translation/language barrier. the words of the bible are not dead letter, there is life in the words. Doubt will only keep you from this life. People who deny the bible is Gods written word are really only denying themselves access to wisdom and knowledge and all the promises of God. Firstly I never said it was not the inspired word of God. So I have not denied it is God's word. What I do do is look at what is written and see that not everything in the bible is from God according to the bible itself. Secondly your counter argument does not stand. Yes the bible does not mention anyone as being infallible. A point I made so i don't know why you think it is important to bring it up. Yes God used infallible people. That does not mean that just becuase he used infallible people that it must be free from mistake. Thirdly and most importantly you have not addressed the example given which is not explained by the options you mention. i am aware of those possibilities and do not discount the bible because of translation issues. In fact I am well aware of them and am careful not to build doctrine around scripture where those issues can change the meaning. You can say man has corrupted translation if you like but then you need to explain how we find out the true meaning if it is corrupted especially since it is used by many to determine if someone is a christian or not. With my personal beliefs the example in the OP is totally irrelevant. However for others here it is vitally important they explain this.

you need to read the OP again. At no point in time did the OP argue a contradiction about how people were made. It clearly says in one passage that something was made before Adam was while in the second passage those same things were made after Adam. That is the contradiction you need to deal with not the imaginary one you have created. If given word for word what to write then there is not room to put your own style in other than the way you write certain letters if handwritten. If typed then there is no room for individual style if I am told exactly word for word what to write. The style will be that of the one dictating the words. An individual style can come through if one is given an idea and the person writes it down. However one can not say they were told word for word what to write when it is clear they put in their personal opinion. Note personal opinion not style. Once again you are not reading what is said and are answering something different to the point raised.

Inspired does not mean without error. See to believe the bible is without error there are only two possible options. 1. That those who wrote scriptures are infallible. I can not believe this 2. God told them word for word exactly what to write. I can not believe this because we see that people put their own opinions into what they wrote. Did God really say write this word and now put your personal opinion in then write this word. Just can't believe God did that. The words in the original language are documents are inspired. All of the words. He did not inspire ideas or concepts. He inspired words. We believe that God inspired the Scriptures in that he super-intended them upon the minds of the writers and they faithfully recorded what God transmitted to them and they recorded those words without error. The Bible contains no human opinions. so your saying the bible contains errors then. After all it states very clearly that an author has put their personal opinion in. That does not match with what you say.

Inspired does not mean without error. See to believe the bible is without error there are only two possible options. 1. That those who wrote scriptures are infallible. I can not believe this 2. God told them word for word exactly what to write. I can not believe this because we see that people put their own opinions into what they wrote. Did God really say write this word and now put your personal opinion in then write this word. Just can't believe God did that.

However at the time it was written the only scriptures that existed at that point in time was the OT. As such it was talking about the OT not the NT. Old times also refers to OT. Yet you say all this without addressing the contradiction the OP gave. That is for most people a serious contradiction. It isn't something like scribal error or the number of soldiers. This is one persons opinion. They have not provided anything to support some of their statements. Statements they rely on to prove their overall point. by whose definition is inerrancy essential doctrine? That is your opinion not fact. Several denominations have doctrine saying the bible is the inspired word of God. Inspired and inerrant are not the same thing

However you did not address the contradiction claimed in the OP. Instead you focus on one part and say there is no contradiction but in no way address the other contradiction about the order of creation. That is what you need to explain not some objection that the OP did not even raise.

division can be bad. Often when we see the bible talking about unity it is not talking about having the exact same set of beliefs as everyone else. It is usually talking about loving one another and that if we don't do this then it can affect our witness. Just because people think a different way is best does not mean they are not trying to get to the same place. Like a road trip. One can take a bus and get there while another could take a car and get to the same place.

I have seen some twisting of scripture in my time but this is right up there amongst the worse I have ever seen. Context, context, context. Read the verse in the context of the entire Psalm and it is clear it is not talking about scriptures but rather the words one speaks.

actually I was talking about translations that include the information that some include it and some don't. That means one can decide for themselves. So they are providing the information

so whats the problem with other translations which also include this information?

forgiveness does not mean there are not consequences to actions. I realise forgiveness means not paying the penalty God demands for our sins but there are still natural consequences for actions. Lets pretend I stole money from you. Would you then trust me with your bank account details? Of course not. You can forgive me but it doesn't mean you would trust me. Thats fine. So you can forgive these people without actually talking to them. Forgiving them doesn't mean you need to stay in touch with them. So yeah I'd go with the deleting the account idea you had. I think you had good instincts with that idea but a few doubts. Go for it I say. As to not feeling like it is forgiving them sometimes it helps to confess sins out loud to a person. You have done that by acknowledging here you gave in to temptation after struggling for so long. Now you need to forgive yourself for doing so. Then forgive those who have hurt you and bullied you again. If the devil tries convincing you that you are no good because of this then remember you are a burning stick snatched from the fire. God reached into that fire to pull you out to save you. He scarred himself forever just to save you. He has taken away the filthy clothes and replaced them (Zachariah 3).

although it should be noted that at the time it was written this verse actually is talking about the OT only as there was no NT considered scripture at that point in time.

The link that you did not want to look at because you didn't provide it has proof that the KJV added words. Why do you think I was saying look at it. Do you see? Probably not because it shatters your illusion. I am not talking about words in italics to make sure it makes sense. I realise they have done that and as you say it is well known. You did comment on it being a good link. So did you make a mistake and it is not or what? Earlier I said why not trust the catholic church then since they came up with the canon. Yet you reject the catholic churchs version of the canon and instead accept the protestant one. If that is not the same picking and choosing then I don't know what is. What has been added in your KJV is not included in catholic bibles. Of course you have your go to verses for comparison that you have decided are important. The only issue I have with the latin being used is that many KJV people claim it was translated from one text. Glad you acknowledge that.

So there is nothing wrong with people deciding to make their own version of the canon despite you arguing the opposite. Got it. See the canon was already established before protestantism started. Therefore there should be no discusssion by protestantism as to what the canon contains. It already existed and therefore should be kept the same. I am aware you are not catholic but that makes no difference. but it is okay to add to the canon though in your opinion. Why is it okay to add but not take away? See the KJV adds words that were not in the texts they translated from. pretty close that I was tempted just to leave it. My point was simply that the argument you used as evidence that the KJV and any other translations that contain the same material must be correct becuase it was believed for a long time is not a legitimate argument. I never said the bible is not the inspired word of God.

excellent point

So the canon was determined by the catholic church and when they say the apocrypha is part of that then you reject that and instead go to what was later decided by protestants. It doesn't make sense to me. The canon was decided on before the KJV was decided on. The original texts also do not include something which the website provided by coheir critcises other translations for not including. So the KJV doesn't keep strictly to original texts in that regard either. If you are going to reject the point I made using medical breakthrough as an example as irrelevant could you at least explain why. See i think you are missing what I am saying. I am simply saying that arguing that because something has been believed for a long time that it must be correct is not a valid argument.

How do you know the KJV has included every word in the original canon? It is based on what the catholic church says as being correct in which case one then has to ask why you would not accept the apocrypha like they do. if you think it is irrelevant then you are not reading what I'm saying properly. You have used the argument that because something was believed for a long time then it must be correct. I used the example to show something that was believed by christians for a long time and you would have believed as well if you lived in the 1600's or 1200's. It is a belief that only dissapeared from the church last century sadly. However if long established belief makes something right then you must logically follow that belief. If you choose not to then you can not rely on that argument. Just to be clear I did not provide a link. You claimed the link was a good one and set things out well. So I simply wondered if you had actually looked at the link properly to find the error in the claim it makes. In any case when was the original text included in the canon? Why did previous views get decided as being wrong. Which KJV is correct? Is it the protestant version or the catholic version? What is wrong with making changes if a discovery is made that shows the understanding is wrong. That is what they did with the medical example I gave. They used to actually mention it by name. Now they no longer do.

this does not explain the double standard of your position of keeping to the KJV. Text was established before that. It is also fact that reasons the KJV has the position it does has very little to do with the quality of the translation. As I have said before you assume the KJV is correct and that anything that is different must be wrong. As I have said previously everyone agreed that having a genuine medical issue was actually demon possession once upon a time. Yet we don't teach that these days. Yet it was an established and accepted belief including at the time the KJV was written (both first and second time). You are also wrong in saying there are no limits. There obviously are limits as to what could be removed as justification has been given for that. What the KJV translators decided to do when certain texts they felt should be included were not in the documents they were translating from is they then went to a different source and translated it from that. Other translation have simply said we will stick to this document and if it is not in that document then we will not include it. That is more consistent than the KJV method. Of course that does not make it right but it is certainly a far cry from the whatever you like claim. From the link provided in post #97 can you tell me which example should not be there according to the arguments made by that website. Just give the scripture reference. No need to type out the whole verse.

It is worrying when you read a false claim in the first paragraph. Several texts were used in the KJV including the Latin Vulgate where the documents used were missing passages. I will try to get to it later when I have time. I will say this for now though. One of the examples given should not be there according to the argument the website uses that if it has been around for a long time then it must be right which then means the example where stuff is removed should not actually be there because they were correct to remove it. Would be interesting to see if people know what I'm talking about.

That link makes false claims. It claims certain things are removed from certain versions and I have found two so far where the versions include what they claim to have removed. So far I have only found one difference that could be argued to be significant although I don't believe it is. I hope you checked it all before posting the link. Edit: I have only gone through the OT passages listed so far.

bible gateway means you don't need to keep them around. You can keep your KJV and then just use that website to look at others. You can also put passages side by side in there. Of course I always say one should never just compare one verse to another and make a judgment. Instead one should look at the extended passage to see if the meaning has been changed.

This comes straight from a website. What they don't look at is if the meaning of the passage is changed by doing so. If the meaning is the same then there really is no problem. It reminds me of the monarchy vs republic debate in Australia a number of years ago. The monarchists ran a very clever campaign saying there would be a certain amount of changes to the constitution if we became a republic. That scared a lot of people. However if one looked at what the changes were most of them were removing references to the monarchy or crown.