The Inerrancy of the Bible

Just once more 36, how old does the KJV say the earth is?Does it say man was created in the same week that all other living things were created?

Concerning the Bible as true in literal meaning, we are discussing accuracy. Crashfrog, you and I approach the issue from two different perspectives. I believe God to be living, interacting with me through the text, and able to aid my discernment. You probably see the text as just another attempt by man to influence and control other men and women through made up fables. Lets take a N.T. example. 1) If Jesus were real, and at the end of your life he asked you why you had a grudge against someone and you said that you had forgiven them time and time again...probably way more than 77 times but that you were fed up with them, do you think that you would get off on a technicality seeing as how He specifically quoted 77 as the standard? My point is that numbers in the Bible are exact according to Gods standard and not human measurement. If the Bible were an exact measureable science, it would make no sense for 5 loaves to be able to feed 5000, (1000 to 1 ratio) and 7 loaves for 4000...(571 to 1 ratio) Do you really think that EXACTLY 5000 people were there? Or 4000 EXACTLY? The point is this: A small amount of food went a long way and fed a lot of people. Some say that the miracle was supernatural. Others say that everyone became generous when the Disciples gave up their food and thus all shared what they had. The point is literal and inerrent. The numbers do not matter.

Of course, the hind legs of a locust are used for both leaping and crawling.. so, your attempt at explaination falls on it's face.

Question - you ever heard of somebody losing class status? Before you can make the assertion that an ancient Roman of "Senatorial rank" couldn't have ever become Equestrian class, you need to find some Roman records that say this can't happen... I'll wait Politics is a mean game - if you don't undertand them you should try getting involved The Romans wouldn't have personally directed a census in a client state? Question, have you ever read the news? Who was really in charge of Eastern Europe during the Cold War? Think any Soviet troops were in East Germany or Poland? How about now in Iraq? Any Americans there? Your client state assertion actually backs up what the Bible says - that the Romans had top level control...Paul, you write:
"As for the other differences I suggest you carefully read the stories for yourself and see just how little they have in common."I've read the stories multiple times, please elaborate on the errors I must have missed?

Ramoss: Please provide proof, other than the already self-contradictory "Free Encyclopedia" article that this census could not have taken place. I have a feeling you can't, because if you could you probably would have by now...Until you prove Tom wrong, it's hard to call out that you've found an error. Also, try reading the rules about not bringing the exact same topic up with no new information post after post

ramoss, I guess were then in agreement with the KJV then. The two legs that extend above and behind the 4 smaller legs are used for jumping and that the KJV does not say the 2 legs for jumping is not supportive in the creeping mode, not that they do much creeping.I'm pleased were at least in agreement with the KJV spin that the 4 smaller legs are designed for creeping, and that the 2 jumping legs are not designed to do the creeping. They are designed to leap, and with wings its quite a lift.I don't see the 2 larger legs doing all that much creeping, the creator simply didn't design them for creeping.Next time you see a grasshopper in the wild, watch and see just how much those jumping legs are used in creeping. The bible says their primary use is for jumping, and the 4 smaller legs for creeping.

I will not attempt to argue that Tom or anybody else on this forum is "inerrant." Jupiter "standing still" does seem fishy based on what we know about planetary movement. But Jupiter is also just a hypothesis using the 25 December date which itself is questionable. Seeing as we don't even know what date this "event" happened on, I'd say it's hard to declare this event an error yet. Tom's reference to Jupiter could be an error though, but again, Tom's inerrancy isn't the issue.If you really don't believe the Biblical account, you need to go figure out when it might have happened. Once you've done that, you need to round up every text you have that would mention similar out of place stars. The major problem you'll run into here is lack of data to work from due to the time from the event and destruction of "evidence."And again, not to use the Miracle "cop-out" but some things just can't be explained... That doesn't make them errors though, just hard to believe

Schrer ("Gesch." i. 508-543)Also see Roman History (by Dio Cassius, LV 24:9)This message has been edited by ramoss, 01-19-2005 15:59 AM

What happened was that a writer around 50 AD or so needed highly significant portents in the sky to point to the birth of a god on earth, so he decided on a star "appearing." Whether this was intended to mean a conjunction of planets or a "new" star would depend, I suppose, on how astrologically sophisticated the author was.

"36 Christians," as you read these posts, notice that a guy with 7300 posts and making references to Sesame Street is asking about cultural context. This should not surprise you, it's hard to understand culture from one's computer.Crashfrog? What's trivial? They way "above" is used? Or the way you are trying to box in its definition? Please check out meaning #4 from Merriam-Webster: 4 archaic : in addition : BESIDES. It seems this scenario is just like the "fowl" issue from before, it really comes down to you as the reader not having a good understanding of vocabulary.Crashfrog, I used to think that "36 Christians" point about inerrancy was a little bold, but as weak as all these "error" attempts are, I'm beginning to wonder...

Tom! We don't have to wait to see one in the wild when we can watch it on-line: Grasshopper "creeping" movie courtesy of Texas A&M.Gee. It sure looks like those two "jumping" legs are doing a heck of a lot during "creeping". If the creator didn't design them for creeping, then why are they used during creeping?

I'm not about to post locust pictures up here, but if you type in the word "locust" and the word "insect" into a search engine, you should be able to come up with a picture. Please take note of the fact that like grasshoppers, 2 of their legs are not like the others In fact 2 of their legs are quite clearly jumping legs Really this comes down to you not liking Hebrew sentence structure, not an error. Would you have preferred it to say: a bug with 6 legs for walking, but of those 6 legs only 2 of them are for jumping? While you're bagging on the ancient Hebrews, please mail the various governments of the world and politely ask them to change all their sentence structures to that of "contemporary American internet addict."So back to you, is it really that hard to understand?

That's a post-Fall grasshopper, PS. Hopperosis sinfulbastardus. They're very common down here. They use those hind legs to crawl because of SIN!!!

You've nailed it right on the head haven't you? Good job. Ok, yes, people are pointing to what look like errors TO THEM. The problem is that none of the "errors" presented yet are errors. Why does explaining the "error" make it not an error? If there's an explanation as to why it's not an error, wouldn't that imply it's not an error?The problem with your allusion to American history is that with American history, we have corresponding data. With the Bible, everything is conveniently missing...

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?