Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

[McBell]

Yes .. but the changes from one KJV Bible to the next are generally insignificant -- not something very good to shoot down the 100% inspired 100% Truth claims very well.. The differences I cited blows such claims out of the water .. Pious Fraud on a number of counts ..

Check out the KJV version of deut 32:43 .. what happened to the Cleansing of the peoples land ?

Rejoice, O ye nations, [with] his people: for he will avenge the bloodof his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, [and]to his people.

Now rather than Ethnic Cleansing of his chosen peoples land .. it is now God's land .. and God is being mercifull to the land .. and its people ?

No inspiration going on here .. and a whole lot of falsehood.

But more than enough to shoot down "god written inerrant" claim.

Though I wonder if they are aware that the version of their claimed god written inerrant king james bible included translation notes...

And that with each new revision less and less of said notes were included.

 

[ratiocinator]

Simple. it has no errors, was purified 7x...

Circular reasoning and a meaningless unargued assertion. What does "purified 7x" even mean?

...and it is the most quoted, read, and published book ever.

[citation missing] And even if it is, that's doesn't tell us the KJV is true or the one translation that is 100% correct. Ever heard of an argumentum ad populum fallacy?

 

[Sargonski]

But more than enough to shoot down "god written inerrant" claim.

Though I wonder if they are aware that the version of their claimed god written inerrant king james bible included translation notes...

And that with each new revision less and less of said notes were included.

Perhaps ... but if it is just a few typo's .. the adept adherent will have resources to wiggle out claiming the overall message is unaffected .. that God guides the message ... the human hand can make small mistake.

I am thinking of legal terms mens rea - actus rea. you need to prove both for criminal conviction. Actus rea- means you need to have done the act. mens rea - means you have to have intended it .. and this is the problem with the small scribal error such as a typo .. there was no evil intent to change the message -- and overall, the message has not changed .. still the same "Inspired" message.

This is juxtaposed to the situation where the message has completely been changed or altered - the dissappearance of the other divinities is a major "Sin of Omission" and alteration of the text that drastically changes the message - and it is intentional .. no secret that monotheistic ideology was firmly entrenched by 700 AD.

Then - you have a direct alteration and reversal of meaning .. from the MT to modern translation. "Cleansing his peoples land" .. to "Be Merciful to his land and its people"

The ownership of the land has been switched .. and "Ethnic Cleansing" the people is not being merciful to the people. The message in this passage has completely changed.. and it was intentional .. in more than one instance .. to the point where if one version is inspired .. the other can not be whereas in the case of a typo .. one could argue that both readings are inspired .. the message unchanged by the slip of the pen.

 

[McBell]

Perhaps ... but if it is just a few typo's .. the adept adherent will have resources to wiggle out claiming the overall message is unaffected .. that God guides the message ... the human hand can make small mistake.

I am thinking of legal terms mens rea - actus rea. you need to prove both for criminal conviction. Actus rea- means you need to have done the act. mens rea - means you have to have intended it .. and this is the problem with the small scribal error such as a typo .. there was no evil intent to change the message -- and overall, the message has not changed .. still the same "Inspired" message.

This is juxtaposed to the situation where the message has completely been changed or altered - the dissappearance of the other divinities is a major "Sin of Omission" and alteration of the text that drastically changes the message - and it is intentional .. no secret that monotheistic ideology was firmly entrenched by 700 AD.

Then - you have a direct alteration and reversal of meaning .. from the MT to modern translation. "Cleansing his peoples land" .. to "Be Merciful to his land and its people"

The ownership of the land has been switched .. and "Ethnic Cleansing" the people is not being merciful to the people. The message in this passage has completely changed.. and it was intentional .. in more than one instance .. to the point where if one version is inspired .. the other can not be whereas in the case of a typo .. one could argue that both readings are inspired .. the message unchanged by the slip of the pen.

Inerrant means free from error.
Typos are errors.
Thus, even a typo renders the claim inerrant false.

 

[Sargonski]

Inerrant means free from error.
Typos are errors.
Thus, even a typo renders the claim inerrant false.

Agreed .. but does not help us much with the 100% inspired claim.

 

[McBell]

Agreed .. but does not help us much with the 100% inspired claim.

Of course not.
Apologetics is 100% about finding loopholes.

 

[Sargonski]

Inerrant means free from error.
Typos are errors.
Thus, even a typo renders the claim inerrant false.

Agreed .. but does not help us much with the 100% inspired claim.

 

[Sargonski]

Of course not.
Apologetics is 100% about finding loopholes.

Yes .. wiggly worms .. but there is no escape from the crucifixion .. no loophole to exploit .. gonna save the fundamentalist from Deut 32:43. Not that this not the only passage guaranteed to crucify .. The author of Matt using all of Mark as source document .. and including all of it in this Gospel .. sans a few passages that are disparaging to Jesus and/or the Disciples .. this information Boldly Available at Catholic Encyclopedia... CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel of St. Matthew

Sure .. such Artistic Licence was more acceptable back in the day .. but now this "Sin of Omission" is called "Pious Fraud" - and obiviously not inspired by God .. lest we wish to pigeon hole God as a Pious Fraudster .. and we don't want to do that ..

(a) Analogy to Mark

• Mark is found complete in Matthew, with the exception of numerous slight omissions and the following pericopes: Mark 1:23-28, 35-39; 4:26-29; 7:32-36; 8:22-26; 9:39-40; 12:41-44.
• Matthew extenuates or omits everything which, in Mark, might be construed in a sense derogatory to the Person of Christ or unfavourable to the disciples. Thus, in speaking of Jesus, he suppresses the following phrases: "And looking round about on them with anger" (Mark 3:5); "And when his friends had heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him. For they said: He is beside himself" (Mark 3:21),

 

[Sargonski]

Simple. it has no errors, was purified 7x, and it is the most quoted, read, and published book ever.

That is simply funny (Purified 7x) .. but, OK .. this means you are claiming that all bibles other than the KJV are fraudulent and full of errors .. Agreed !?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Yes .. wiggly worms .. but there is no escape from the crucifixion .. no loophole to exploit .. gonna save the fundamentalist from Deut 32:43. Not that this not the only passage guaranteed to crucify .. The author of Matt using all of Mark as source document .. and including all of it in this Gospel .. sans a few passages that are disparaging to Jesus and/or the Disciples .. this information Boldly Available at Catholic Encyclopedia... CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel of St. Matthew

Sure .. such Artistic Licence was more acceptable back in the day .. but now this "Sin of Omission" is called "Pious Fraud" - and obiviously not inspired by God .. lest we wish to pigeon hole God as a Pious Fraudster .. and we don't want to do that ..

Read Cold Case Christianity as he explains this in detail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Read Cold Case Christianity as he explains this in detail.

No, he really doesn't. Apologetics is merely lying for Jesus. You should try to learn what makes claims reliable.

 

[Sargonski]

Read Cold Case Christianity as he explains this in detail.

I need no explanation from the snake charmers. You on the other hand should read the Catholic Encyclopedia reference given for your reading enjoyment below

(a) Analogy to Mark

• Mark is found complete in Matthew, with the exception of numerous slight omissions and the following pericopes: Mark 1:23-28, 35-39; 4:26-29; 7:32-36; 8:22-26; 9:39-40; 12:41-44.
• Matthew extenuates or omits everything which, in Mark, might be construed in a sense derogatory to the Person of Christ or unfavourable to the disciples. Thus, in speaking of Jesus, he suppresses the following phrases: "And looking round about on them with anger" (Mark 3:5); "And when his friends had heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him. For they said: He is beside himself" (Mark 3:21),

Do you understand the Pious Fraud now ? -- clearly not "Inspired" and this just one of many many examples of the uninspired.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I need no explanation from the snake charmers. You on the other hand should read the Catholic Encyclopedia reference given for your reading enjoyment below



Do you understand the Pious Fraud now ? -- clearly not "Inspired" and this just one of many many examples of the uninspired.

There is no discrepancies or errors in the Bible.

Prove one.

 

[Eddi]

There is no discrepancies or errors in the Bible.

Prove one.

Tons have been pointed out to you in this and other threads like it

Will you ever learn???????

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I need no explanation from the snake charmers. You on the other hand should read the Catholic Encyclopedia reference given for your reading enjoyment below



Do you understand the Pious Fraud now ? -- clearly not "Inspired" and this just one of many many examples of the uninspired.

What version of the Bible are you referring to?
Only the King James Bible counts.

 

[Sargonski]

There is no discrepancies or errors in the Bible.

Prove one.

What are you talking about - there are massive discrepancies ... way to many to count between Bibles ? are you not aware that some Bibles contain entire books .. not in the other bibles ? Shepherd of Hermes -- Epistle of Barnabus were in the earliest Bibles put together by Eusebius.

You can go read the Codex Sinaiticus online --- Codex Sinaiticus - Home

In this Bible the Gospel of Mark ends on 16:8 .. as do all the earliest manuscripts .. as stated in the footnotes .. or - in the middle of the page - as is the case for the NIV [The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 16 - New International Version

Jesus Has Risen - When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, “Who will roll...

www.biblegateway.com

Thats a rather large discrepancy don't you think ? given the subject matter that was added later .. the so called "Long ending of Mark" of which there are a number of variations in different bibles ... = more discrepancies .. but let us focus on what was added to Mark as it is rather important .. along with the "Pious Fraud" in Matt mentioned earlier.

Mark is earliest story of the life and death of Jesus that we have .. the other synoptic gospels . Matt and Luke were written decades later using Mark as a source document were written .. Matt for example containing Mark in its entirety sans a few verses derogatory to Jesus or the Disciples.

Now .. talk about discrepancy - the Earliest story of Jesus has no physical resurrection Friend .. no stories of Jesus appearing after death in the flesh -- Just an empty tomb .. the reader left to wonder what happened to the Body of Jesus .. and this is the story of Christians until around 80 AD .. 50 years after the death of our lord .. we hear stories about Jesus appearing after death in the flesh... the smoking gun for the resurrection .. without which .. there is no smoking gun .. which is a darn huge discrepancy .. and not very inspiring.

The promise of the resurrection is important don't you think SBLM

Thats a rather huge discrepancy don't you think ?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

What are you talking about - there are massive discrepancies ... way to many to count between Bibles ? are you not aware that some Bibles contain entire books .. not in the other bibles ? Shepherd of Hermes -- Epistle of Barnabus were in the earliest Bibles put together by Eusebius.

You can go read the Codex Sinaiticus online --- Codex Sinaiticus - Home

In this Bible the Gospel of Mark ends on 16:8 .. as do all the earliest manuscripts .. as stated in the footnotes .. or - in the middle of the page - as is the case for the NIV [The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 16 - New International Version

Jesus Has Risen - When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, “Who will roll...

www.biblegateway.com

Thats a rather large discrepancy don't you think ? given the subject matter that was added later .. the so called "Long ending of Mark" of which there are a number of variations in different bibles ... = more discrepancies .. but let us focus on what was added to Mark as it is rather important .. along with the "Pious Fraud" in Matt mentioned earlier.

Mark is earliest story of the life and death of Jesus that we have .. the other synoptic gospels . Matt and Luke were written decades later using Mark as a source document were written .. Matt for example containing Mark in its entirety sans a few verses derogatory to Jesus or the Disciples.

Now .. talk about discrepancy - the Earliest story of Jesus has no physical resurrection Friend .. no stories of Jesus appearing after death in the flesh -- Just an empty tomb .. the reader left to wonder what happened to the Body of Jesus .. and this is the story of Christians until around 80 AD .. 50 years after the death of our lord .. we hear stories about Jesus appearing after death in the flesh... the smoking gun for the resurrection .. without which .. there is no smoking gun .. which is a darn huge discrepancy .. and not very inspiring.

The promise of the resurrection is important don't you think SBLM

Thats a rather huge discrepancy don't you think ?

Only the King James Bible 1769 - 66 books
Prove errors using that if you can.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no discrepancies or errors in the Bible.

Prove one.

When you refuse to learn you lose the right to make such demands.

 

[McBell]

Only the King James Bible 1769 - 66 books
Prove errors using that if you can.

Including or excluding the translation notes?

 

[McBell]

When you refuse to learn you lose the right to make such demands.

ah...
and here I was going to reply simply with "Easter"...