When "Inerrant" Really Means "Full Of Errors"

[SeekingAllTruth]

Case in point. I gave you a scenario but invent a standard for it to fail, not a full scenario. You don't want the truth!

That's the worst excuse-making for not being able to answer a simple question I have ever heard.

Admit it: you don't know how to reconcile the two because it is impossible to reconcile them.

Both the Pharisees AND Judas could not have used the money to buy the field and you know this but you refuse to acknowledge that fact because then you'd have to admit the Bible has contradictory stories.

I expected better from a Christian. I didn't expect duplicity. As usual, subterfuge apologetics.

 

[thomas t]

Forever can be a long time or a short time.

Jon 2:6 (2:7) I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars closed upon me for ever; yet hast Thou brought up my life from the pit, O LORD my God.

In the case of Jonah, "for ever" was three days.

I'm convinced God is a God who loves his children.
It's a loving God, I think.
Why would he use "forever" in instances where it doesn't mean forever? Just to fool his children?
Never.
If a word can mean anything, you can't use that word for communication. It's useless.
Even in the case of Jonah, it meant forever,
it's just that the verb is missing in the Hebrew text.
However, in English you can't have a phrase without a verb. So, your version added a "closed". That's their choice.
In my opinion, you could just as well add a "and I was supposed to be".... and then the forever makes perfect sense. I was supposed to be behind the bars forever, this is what the sentence would loo like.

In the Bible, certain worms live forever, so there is absolutely no option to suppose that human souls do not, in my view, see Isaiah 66:24.

 

[thomas t]

If one is in a Bible fetish community then group think overwhelms their logical mind.

no, I am not in a fetish group.
No, my mind isn't overwhelmed.
I just claim that Bible is inerrant.
That's all. No fetish. No lack of logic.

This results their followers to become deceptive and not straightforward, a great loss, I figure.

no, I am not deceptive.
Please, don't call me "friend" again, in your reply.
I don't like you to call me deceptive and friend at the same time. I appreciate honest friendship, though.

 

[paarsurrey]

no, I am not deceptive.
Please, don't call me "friend" again, in your reply.
I don't like you to call me deceptive and friend at the same time. I appreciate honest friendship, though.

I didn't mean it personally against anybody so I have revised my post. Jesus did not say that he was inerrant or whatever his disciples write will be inerrant. Jesus said he was Son of Adam or Son of Man, and Adam did not claim to be inerrant and to err is human. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Wrangler]

That's the worst excuse-making for not being able to answer a simple question I have ever heard.

Admit it: you don't know how to reconcile the two because it is impossible to reconcile them.

Too bad for you. I reconciled the statements seamlessly. You are not seeking truth. You are looking to poke holes in what is true.

 

[Wrangler]

Both the Pharisees AND Judas could not have used the money to buy the field and you know this but you refuse to acknowledge that fact

Only in the same way you refuse to answer who paid to build the wall and who built the wall.

Your position is ridiculously limited to strict linguistic literalism. Guess what? The Bible is highly figurative. If you want to criticize it on a false basis of literalism, bless your heart.

I have answered your questions and you have not answered mine. This shows you are not interested in learning or what is true.

 

[Colt]

I didn't mean it personally against anybody so I have revised my post. Jesus did not say that he was inerrant or whatever his disciples write will be inerrant. Jesus said he was Son of Adam or Son of Man, and Adam did not claim to be inerrant and to err is human. Right, please?

Regards

Jesus said he was the Son of God and was sinless.

 

[Kenny]

It's no secret that God's "inerrant" word is riddled with errors. One can google "Bible contradictions" and come up with with pages and pages of results outlining hundreds if not thousands of errors and contradictions. Whole books on the subject are available on Amazon. Ken Ham wrote a two-volume rebuttal to the most common ones and his treatise doesn't even scratch the surface. I looked at one site and thought I saw 5000. Turns out it was 50,000. It's true that most are of a minor nature, but quite a few--perhaps 500 by my reckoning are egregious enough to be considered serious enough to question the Bible's veracity.

.

I think it just depends on who you listen to. For the site you find on "contradictions" there is another site that says "no contradiction".

It is a matter of interpretation. IMV

Some has to do with context. Some has to do with cultural translations and understanding. Some have to do with willful ignorance or bias.

I would hold to "the inspired word of God". But that is just me.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Only in the same way you refuse to answer who paid to build the wall and who built the wall.

Your position is ridiculously limited to strict linguistic literalism. Guess what? The Bible is highly figurative. If you want to criticize it on a false basis of literalism, bless your heart.

I have answered your questions and you have not answered mine. This shows you are not interested in learning or what is true.

I know a dodge when I see one, wrangler. I won't bother you anymore.

 

[Colt]

The temptation is that lacking the visible presence of God on earth, believers make the writings about God into an object of perfection, of inerrancy. Also the church derives its authority from the scripture, they fear to admit errors because they see that as a slippery slope.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

I think it just depends on who you listen to. For the site you find on "contradictions" there is another site that says "no contradiction".

It is a matter of interpretation. IMV

Some has to do with context. Some has to do with cultural translations and understanding. Some have to do with willful ignorance or bias.

I would hold to "the inspired word of God". But that is just me.

Ken, may I run a question by you since a few members have refused to answer it already

And [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners.—Matthew 27:5-7

Now [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. —Acts 1:18

Question:

Did Judas throw the 30 pieces of silver back at the Pharisees and the Pharisees bought the field with the money

OR

Did Judas keep the 30 pieces of silver and use the money to go out and buy a field? Can these two verses be reconciled? [/QUOTE]

 

[Wrangler]

I know a dodge when I see one, wrangler.

Do you have any capacity for discernment at all?! There is a difference between dodging the question from me providing an answer you don't like or will not accept. You are dodging the question about the wall.

Normal people talk in figurative terms frequently. When people say Hitler killed millions of people, most know that is not literally true. Same with eating a horse, being dead tired, etc. In the NSRV translation, which is mostly literal, in Exodus reads the Israeli's were 'stiff necked.' Another translation, which is not literal, uses 'rebellious and sinful.' So, while 'stiff necked' is the literal word translated into English, it has a figurative meaning.

I won't bother you anymore.

Thank goodness. Bless your heart.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

The temptation is that lacking the visible presence of God on earth, believers make the writings about God into an object of perfection, of inerrancy. Also the church derives its authority from the scripture, they fear to admit errors because they see that as a slippery slope.

I think that's a pretty fair and accurate assessment, cOLTER.

 

[paarsurrey]

Jesus said he was the Son of God and was sinless.

Please quote from God-the-Father where He said to Jesus that Jesus was "Inerrant" and or from Jesus where Jesus said in First Peron that he was "inerrant", There is none, I get, please. Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[Colt]

Please quote from God-the-Father where He said to Jesus that Jesus was "Inerrant" and or from Jesus where Jesus said in First Peron that he was "inerrant", There is none, I get, please. Right friend, please?

Regards

Jesus never said he was "inerrant".

 

[paarsurrey]

Jesus never said he was "inerrant".

And Jesus did not write the Gospels, it is written by the sinful scribes, therefore, it has to be "errant", please. Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[Colt]

And Jesus did not write the Gospels, it is written by the sinful scribes, therefore, it has to be "errant", please. Right friend, please?

Regards

That’s correct, but the 4 Gospels record the major themes.

 

[Kenny]

Ken, may I run a question by you since a few members have refused to answer it already

And [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners.—Matthew 27:5-7

Now [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. —Acts 1:18

Question:

Did Judas throw the 30 pieces of silver back at the Pharisees and the Pharisees bought the field with the money

OR

Did Judas keep the 30 pieces of silver and use the money to go out and buy a field? Can these two verses be reconciled?

Both...

If one is wanting answers, all you have to do is google and you will see many views... here is one:

"In many languages today there is the equivalent of the English word "acquire." In Russian "priobrel" means acquire - in contrast "buy" in Russian would be kupit. In Azerbaijani language for "buy" we use a word "almaq" which has many meanings like buy, take, gain.

This word acquire in the original Greek does not necessarily mean that someone put down real money on the counter and got something in exchange for it. To make the long story short, the Scriptures show that the Priests bought it, and so Judas gained or acquired it.

Now what was Judas doing on that land?

He was angry with what happened, he understood how he was fooled by the Pharisees, and could not believe his foolishness. It happens to all of us. In the heat of our passions, envy or some other feelings we do something stupid, and then like in the Azeri saying -- let the earth swallow me -- feelings rush in. With that perspective, a very human reaction, Judas wanted to do two things on the land: 1. to kill himself; 2. to also disgrace the place Pharisees gave him, in an attempt to disgrace Pharisees too."

another view:

"In essence, the priests bought the field on behalf of Judas.

This is just like when my mother would give me money to go to the store to buy some groceries; we both bought the groceries - I did the physical act and she did through providing the financial resource (and, back in the day of single income families, so did my Dad in earning the income to begin with)."

If one is bent on taking everything "literally", then one would obviously agree that it is a contradiction. But is everything in the Bible literal? no

 

[Kenny]

And Jesus did not write the Gospels, it is written by the sinful scribes, therefore, it has to be "errant", please. Right friend, please?

Regards

I am not sure I would call them "sinful scribes" since when one is born-again he/she is not longer classified as sinful. When one is being moved by the Spirit of God and one obeys God... why would it be errant?

Much the same as the prophet Samuel to which it was said of, "And Samuel grew, and the LORD was with him, and did let none of his words fall to the ground.”

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Both...

If one is wanting answers, all you have to do is google and you will see many views... here is one:

"In many languages today there is the equivalent of the English word "acquire." In Russian "priobrel" means acquire - in contrast "buy" in Russian would be kupit. In Azerbaijani language for "buy" we use a word "almaq" which has many meanings like buy, take, gain.

This word acquire in the original Greek does not necessarily mean that someone put down real money on the counter and got something in exchange for it. To make the long story short, the Scriptures show that the Priests bought it, and so Judas gained or acquired it.

Now what was Judas doing on that land?

He was angry with what happened, he understood how he was fooled by the Pharisees, and could not believe his foolishness. It happens to all of us. In the heat of our passions, envy or some other feelings we do something stupid, and then like in the Azeri saying -- let the earth swallow me -- feelings rush in. With that perspective, a very human reaction, Judas wanted to do two things on the land: 1. to kill himself; 2. to also disgrace the place Pharisees gave him, in an attempt to disgrace Pharisees too."

another view:

"In essence, the priests bought the field on behalf of Judas.

This is just like when my mother would give me money to go to the store to buy some groceries; we both bought the groceries - I did the physical act and she did through providing the financial resource (and, back in the day of single income families, so did my Dad in earning the income to begin with)."

If one is bent on taking everything "literally", then one would obviously agree that it is a contradiction. But is everything in the Bible literal? no

That's a very reasonable explanation. Thank you, Ken.