The Inerrancy of the Bible

No Ned, it's 2183721837214921841724821842172814 years old

Hi dear 36 Christians. I applaud you for your enthusiasm for your Lord and Saviour. May God bless you all and your school.You need to be aware that the some degree of error occurs in tranlating. The original texts written by the eye witness scribes are the nearest to perfect, and some minor inaccuracies as to what is considered bonafide accurate science may even occur in the originals, imo, since the Bible was written for the man on the street and may include some common coloquialisms that the physicist and scientist might challenge as scientifically inaccurate. These, imo are relatively insignificant, given the great amount of remarkable stuff in the Bible, including the fulfilled prophecies, et al.In 1901 the American Standard Version of the Bible came out, translated from some older manuscripts than the KJV. There are some errors in the KJV which, imo the ASV corrected. For example in Revelation 5:9, the KJV says, "........hast redeemed us to God by thy blood......" The problem here is that the 4 beasts and 24 elders fall down in worship saying they were redeemed to God by the blood of Jesus. The 4 beasts worship God day and night forever according to another text. These certainly were'nt redeemed from the earth, nor, likely, were the 24 elders. The older manuscripts from which the ASV was taken renders it "didst purchase to God with thy blood, (men) of every tribe....and made them to be unto our God a kingdom......."

---

In Jehovah God's Universe, time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. It is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

Why do you guys bother with thes claims of inerrancy? It surely does nothing but damage your cause. Logically, you'd expect any ancient text to have errors, inconsistencies and mistranslations. By claiming supernatural errancy, you achieve another step towards disproving the existence of your claimed God when an error is actually found. I don't think any theist or atheist would think any less of your religion if you claimed that your particular Bible version is a good, albeit sometimes "mildly" flawed, means for conveying your religious message.But because you claim errancy, you have to perform ridiculous and dishonest mental gymnastics like you have done in your email above.How old was Noah when Shem was born? 500 or 502?Tom wrote: And Genesis 5:32 says Shem was born when Noah was 500 years old. Generalisation, typo, falsity, inaccuracy, call it whatever but it is a literal error and inconsistency.How many stalls did Solomon have for his horses? 4,000 or 40,000 And where the heck do you get that from?? You've just made that up, haven't you?How long did Jotham reign in Jerusalem? 16 years or 20+ years? Yes, 2 Kings 15:33 does say he reigned for 16 years, from the age of 25, but you have misunderstood 2 Kings 15:30:"And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah."This verse does not tells us what you claim about Remaliah: it only refers to his son Pekah, who was killed by Hoshea. Hoshea reigned in Pekah's stead, (as King of Israel) in the twentieth year of Jotham's reign (as King of Judah). I can't find any evidence to support your claim that Remaliah ruled in Jotham's place.The expression "in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah" means in the twentieth year of Jotham's reign. Look how the expression "in the x year of y" is used throughout the rest of 2 Kings 15. If refers to year of reign, not age. When Kings refers to an age, it says "x was y years old".There is a straight contradiction in 2 Kings 15 within three verses: 30 and 33.When did Ahaziah begin his reign? 11th or 12th year? I think you are confusing the Ahaziah King of Judah and the Ahaziah King of Israel. They are very much not the same person:Timeline: Kings of Israel and Judah
Two different kings: Ahaziah, King of IsraelYou even provide a definition of Ahaziah that depicts two different kings born of two different fathers:"Ahaziah
'ăchazya^h / 'ăchazya^hu^
BDB Definition:
Ahaziah = Jehovah (Yahu) holds (possesses)
1) ruler of Israel, son of Ahab
2) ruler of Judah, son of Jehoram (Joram)
Part of Speech: noun proper masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H270 and H3050"Ahaziah, king of Judah did not reign over Israel at all, and he only ruled over Judah for one year. (2 Kings and 2 Chronicles both have his reign at one year, not two). You have made incorrect statements of fact and failed to explain the Biblical inconsistency.2 Kings 9:29 has Ahaziah commencing his reign as King of Judah in the 11th year of Joram's reign, 2 Kings 8:25 has Ahaziah commencing in Joram's 12th year. The inconsistency remains. How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign? 22 or 42? Firstly, Ahaziah only reigned over Judah for 1 year before he was killed. Secondly, your trying, without justification to claim that 2 Chronicles refers to the age of the house of Ahab and not Ahaziah's age. Let's see what it actually says:"Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem..."Doesn't say anything about the house of Ahab now does it?? I'd like to see you back up your claim of 42 years of the house of Ahab, byt the way.You then go on to confuse the buggery out of the kings of Israel and Judah.Another inconsistency remains.And what about these: Here's 300 odd more: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.htmlThis message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 01-14-2005 00:09 AM

Who was the father of Joeseph, using just the words based on the bible, and not trying to justify it with works written 200 years later.When was Jesus born? Was he born during the reign of Herod the King, who died in 4 B.C.E, or was he born during the census that took place when QUintaris was first govenor of Syria. Ceasar Augustus would not have had the authority to order a census until Judah became part of the providence of Syria, which happened the same year that Quntaris became govenor of Syria, and that was in 6 C.E.Those two should be good to start with, and ones that are specifically
based on Jesus. We will get into the mistranslations of the KJV later.

Of course, that is not what the text says. The interpretation of dividing the stalls into sections of 10 is just an excuse, trying to
rationalise an error.

Gilgamesh, You can calculate the age of Shem, because of the bible only generalized the age in reference to his having 3 children born. Ham was the youngest, it made no reference that his wife bore him triplets. Thus Shem Noahs eldest son being the eldest son by having his first son born 2 years after the flood. A simple calculation makes Seth born when Noah was 502 years.I read that if each stall was subdivided into 10 stalls then Solomon had 4,000 and 40,000 stalls.I read that Jerry Falwell thought that some errors like 42 years might be the result of a scribe error. It does make it easier to understand, no need to grope for straws. Ahaziah was 22 years when and he began his reign as King of Judah in the 11 and 12th years of Joram king of Israels reign. He died with Joram a year later when Jehu killed them fullfilling yet another prophecy in respect to the house of Ahab.I see no reason to try to cipher that the 42 years refers to the age of Ahaziah mother(it could be a scribal error). Then again some believe it refers to the age of the House of Ahab (Ahaziah mother Athaliah was calling the shots), and she was the daughter of Omni King of Israel and the sister to Ahab). 2 Chronicles 22:2-4. The whole chapter of 2 Chronicles was about how she took over rule, killing all the royal seed to the House of Judah, while Ahaziah's son Joash was hidden from Ahazaiah's mothers wrath. I'm still not sold that 2 Chronicles is not accurate as written. It appears though Ahaziah only ruled one year in Jerusalem.Not sure what to make of Jotham, it appears he reigned 16 years in Jerusalem, it talks about some being taken captive by Assyria. Its appearing that he ruled 4 years not in Jerusalem for a total of 20 years up to the point Hoshea began to rule as the King of Israel.This message has been edited by Tom, 01-14-2005 02:11 AM

ramoss, I guess you have your proof that the calendar was set up in error because the bible confirms that Herod the Great was King when the Lord Jesus was born. I suppose this could mean that the calendar is in error and its really more correct to say in respect to Jesus birth were closer to 1998 years past instead of 2005 years.

Thanks for your prompt response Tom, but it was poor: Gee you love twisting things.The Bible claims 2 ages when Noah begat Shem: 500 and 502. They can't both be right. End of story. You didn't read that in the Bible. This is another Bible typo. It is horrifying to agree with Jerry, but he is right. It's another Biblical typo. Yup, it is another one.That'll do. the KJV Bible is ERRANT and INACCURATE. Well done for attempting to defend 36Christian's thread.NEXT!

what are you on about now? god very obviously leads us into temptation. see, well, the passages i just quoted. the prayer christ gives is ASKING god not to do that, not saying that he DOESN'T. read the two passages. other than the verse quoted, they read almost word for word. one is cause by the anger of the lord, no mention of satan, and one by satan's trickery, no mention of god. the two verses have clearly exchanged one for the other.however, you are on the right track. satan cannot act without god's permission. one more time.lucifer = lating for "light bringer" or the planet venus -- the morning star
noctifer = lating for "night bringer" or the planet venus -- the evening star.lucifer literally means the morning star. more importantly, this is probably the same heavenly body isaiah is refering to when he uses the hebrew "heylel" but we only know because of this verse, and the words "son of the morning." this phrase is reason "heylel" is translated "lucifer" by the kvj.we happy yet? if not, look up, i dunno, any christian dogma anywhere. heck, even the movie "dogma" do. (snootchy bootchies.) that's nice, but in the revelation verse, christ is calling HIMSELF lucifer. nope. hasatan = the opposition, the one who tests man. lucifer, heylel, is something else. read the isaiah verse again. revelation is apocalyptic prophesy. as in it hasn't happened yet. so this verse:

quote:

---

kjv Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

---

hasn't happened yet. and calling satan "the devil" is no big stretch either. devil just means liar. he lies to us, he tests us. keep in mind that revelation is STRONGLY allegorical (and probably refering to political matters, not spiritual). but god casting satan out might mean that god is not going to test us anymore. satan isn't so much a being as an office.

No, it's not a an error in the calendar.The census of Qurinius was taken when the Romans deposed Herod's successor Archelaus - indeed the census was taken BECAUSE Judaea's status changed from that of a client state to part of the Empire itself.Matthew 2:22 agrees that Archelaus succeeded Herod the Great in Judaea. Josephus tells us that Archelaus was deposed in the tenth year of his reign and that it was then that Quirinius was sent to hold a census in Judaea (Antiquities 17 chapter 13, and 18 Chapter 1)There is no way that this problem can be attributed to a mere error in the calendar.

quote:

---

The bible verse calls lucifer the son of the morning, not the bright and morning star.

---

Verse 12 is not referring to Satan. It is a taunt against the king of Babylon. Read the whole work!As this Lucifer link shows, the meaning of words change over time. Taking the new meaning back in time is a mistake, an error and does cause problems.To the ancient Hebrews the verse refers to a fallen Babylonian King.In the time of Jerome, Lucifer was the name of the morning star. So he translated it as such without harming the original aim of the taunt.Later Lucifer became a fallen angel and associated with the word Satan or Devil. This is not a major problem until we take the new meaning of the word Lucifer and apply it to Isaiah 14:12.Given the new usage of the word lucifer, today it is an error to translate "helel" as lucifer.This puts the KJV in error, again.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Well, Tom, you are missing the point 100%. Of course, due to mistranslations, the calander is incorrect. However, that is not the point at all.The point is that Matthew said that Jesus was born during the reign of
Herod the King.Luke said Jesus was born when the census ordered by Ceaser Augustus happened when Quinartis first become govenor of Syria.That means, Matthew said that Jesus was born before 4 b.c.
Luke was very specific, and that date on his claim was that born in
6 C.E.. which was 10 years after Herod died.They both can't be true. Those two claims are mutually exclusive.
Do you understand now?

Paulk, ARCHAEOLOGICAL BIBLICAL TIMELINEThe Ancestry of Jesus- ContinuedThe 3 Year Error in our CalendarIt is common knowledge that when the calendar we use today, based on the BC/AD system, was developed, it contained a known 4-year error.http://www.ouryouthgroup.com/devo/timeline2.html

That is understood by those you are discussing this with. Please read what is posted in reply to you more carefully. The error in the start of our year numbering is not the point that is being made.

Can you actually read ? Because you managed to completely miss the point I raised.Herod the Great died and his son Archelaus became ruler of Judaea.In the 10th year of Achelaus' reign he was deposed by the Romans who annexed Judaea.As part of that Quirinius was sent to Judaea to hold a census for tax purposes.The error in the calendar is not relevant to the fact that Herod died before Archelaus became ruler or the fact that the census came after Archelaus was deposed.