Inerrancy of Scripture - Bible believer or bible agnostic?

[Annie]

Again' date=' I am telling you how you come across to others.[/quote']

I'm not sure to whom you are referring when you say "others." I have openly stated that I love God's word, and I have shown myself to be teachable. (Mine was the only concession in the other discussion, as you know.) I repeat once again--for everyone to read--that I love God's word. It is in fact my love for the word of God that has prompted me to enter discussions like this one. Again, I will say that "teachability" is not the same thing as "gullibility" or "accepting arguments that are not based on scripture." I resist all such arguments, because I love the truth. Show me an argument or a position based on scripture, and I will accept it gladly. Show me an argument or doctrine based on misapplied scripture and human reasoning, and I will reject it.

Hopefully these statements clear up any misconceptions regarding my love for truth.

[Pastor Matt]

No one argues that you don't love God's Word. :dunno:
Seems you even want to argue this. **sigh** This is the spirit that I am referring too.

[Annie]

No one argues that you don't love God's Word. :dunno:

You have said you don't see how I'm willing to learn. Seth has said that I refuse to be convinced by scripture. If you do not mean "willing to learn from the scriptures," then what do you mean? The reason I replied emphatically about my love for the scriptures is that you have implied that I do not love them (I'm unwilling to be taught from them). Perhaps I misunderstood you. If I did, please correct my understanding of what you were saying. If you are saying that I'm unteachable because I don't accept Seth's arguments, then I think I've already clarified about that.

Seems you even want to argue this. **sigh** This is the spirit that I am referring too.

I have no desire to argue about this. This discussion is not about me; it's about God's word. Criticism at the personal level doesn't belong in a discussion like this; it's about bigger issues. You claimed that others (unidentified) think I'm not teachable. I merely offered a defense in response to this claim, hoping to clarify their perspective. I have no desire to drag this aspect of the discussion out, but think about it...If someone told you that he (and others) think you're unteachable, you'd want to respond to that claim and explain how you are thinking, wouldn't you? Does "response" equal "arguing?" I haven't said that anyone else is unteachable, just because they haven't expressed agreement with me. Since I do not know their hearts, I cannot presume to judge whether they are teachable or not. Only they (and God) know this. This discussion isn't about deciding whether or not people are teachable (based on whether or not they agree with you); it's about the topic of preservation of scripture. I'd love to get back to that topic.

[Pastor Matt]

It seems that you want to argue everything including this. Enough is enough.

[Annie]

It seems that you want to argue everything including this. Enough is enough.

BroMatt, I've PM-ed you so as not to hijack the thread. If anyone else feels the need to explain how I've been unteachable, please feel free to PM me.

Sorry to get off on a tangent...Now maybe we can get back to Mr. Kinney's topic.

[Pastor Matt]

Got the Pm.

Now let's get the thread back on topic.

[Annie]

Got the Pm.

Now let's get the thread back on topic.

Sounds great to me...but I think Seth has left. If anyone else would like to comment on my response to Seth, the field's wide open!

[Pastor Matt]

That is all I'm asking, that is to keep this now on topic.

[JerryNumbers]

I don't care to debate it, but how many versions of the Bible do you have to have to have what you call the truth?

And how do you decided what part out of which version to believe is truth and what part out of each version has to be rejected because you don't believe its truth?

For instant, it took 15 Bible versions for the very liberal Rick Warren to write his book, "Purpose Driven Life." So it seems to me for him to come up with what he calls truth that he had to use 15 Bible versions.

[Guest Guest]

I wish I knew how to do all those fancy short cut thingies with the quotes, but i cannot so I'll just say,

Annie this hopefully will allow you to see that your comment and question on the age of Ahaziah is about as old as the critical movement itself and completely wrong in being a contradiction. I'll list afew thoughts for you to examine and should you decide to study the KJV in sincerity, I feel you will find the KJV to be both correct and accurate. And also, you will find all other MV's that have changed the age , to be in error and in-accurate in their efforts to "correct" God's word.

Something for you to note in studying this issue, don't sit there and harp on the difference, look for the reason - for the difference. As some have noted, I too am apprehensive in a sense, to put something out here if you are not going to look into it for yourself.

Consider Annie, and go back and read:

Ahaziah's dad died at the age of 40 - II KINGS 8:17
Ahaziah began to reign at 22 - II KINGS 8:26
This goes along with his appointment on/in the 12th year reign of his uncle, Joram - II KINGS 8:25
( just so you wont cry out on the 11th year [iI KINGS9 :29] ) On/in the 11th year Joram ruled alone. The 12th year Joram ruled in behalf of his brother Ahaziah, who was hurt-II KINGS 1:2- then died a year later- II KINGS 1:17 ( Also compare I KINGS 22:51 and II KINGS 3:1)

Athalia was the daughter of Ahab and the sister of Joram - II KINGS 8:27
And after ruling for 20 years under his mama, Ahaziah joined elbows with Joram against Syria- II KINGS8:28
This also was the time for his 42nd birthday.

Annie, if you will, go and read carefully these accounts as written in the KJV. They clearly describe the two different times in which Ahaziah reigned, and the two different circumstances - that is all that it is. If you will look for yourself, and not run to "what saith the Bible correctors"; you will see it. At least I hope you will. I left out a lot of Scripture that would further help you to see, but should you go it yourself, you will see them also.


Now as for the joke about the supposed "contradiction" on the number of horsemen. There has been numerous studies showing the difference in numbering systems in the Bible, your mentioned text selection is just a classic example of such.

Just to give you a little cheese for the bait to see if you will go and study for yourself ( and not trust the Bible "correcting" consensus). Consider the numbering example; the chariots containing 10 horsemen. 700 times 10 = 7,000. It is similar to how modern armies number "companies" a unit can consist of many men, but is refered to as a single unit for different reasons. Go look for yourself, take God's word for it, and take God's word on it.


I reckon you are hung still hung up an all the rest of the so called "goofs" in the KJV - huh?


OH, I almost forgot. Since the KJV is correct and accurate in it's description and explanation in the age difference of Ahaziah when he came to reign under two different times in his life ---

WHAT DOES THAT SAY FOR ALL OF THESE SO CALLED "bibles" THAT SUPPOSEDLY CORRECT THE KJV????????????????????

I'LL TELL YOU----

T.H.E.Y. A.R.E. W.R.O.N.G. .

KJV = correct and accurate.
MV's = incorrect, and inaccurate.

[Guest Guest]

I don't care to debate it, but how many versions of the Bible do you have to have to have what you call the truth?

And how do you decided what part out of which version to believe is truth and what part out of each version has to be rejected because you don't believe its truth?

For instant, it took 15 Bible versions for the very liberal Rick Warren to write his book, "Purpose Driven Life." So it seems to me .

for him to come up with what he calls truth that he had to use 15 Bible versions



Hi Jerry#'s,

This should cause a lot of folk to think, what you brought up here, is a good example of the ways of the comprimisers. Warren is an ecumenical hero that can fit in with most any religion, and he has a great number of people fooled.

15 different Bibles eh? Lets ask the question:

Just what did God say?

" He said this"
" No, He said this"
" Actually, He meant to say this"
" That's close , but if we look here, we find He really said this"
" He did not mean to say that"
" Ah, here it is.."
" No, that differs from this version"

blah
blah
blah.

sheeeeze! Just give me the AV!!

[Annie]

I wish I knew how to do all those fancy short cut thingies with the quotes, but i cannot so I'll just say,

Annie this hopefully will allow you to see that your comment and question on the age of Ahaziah is about as old as the critical movement itself and completely wrong in being a contradiction. I'll list afew thoughts for you to examine and should you decide to study the KJV in sincerity, I feel you will find the KJV to be both correct and accurate. And also, you will find all other MV's that have changed the age , to be in error and in-accurate in their efforts to "correct" God's word.

Something for you to note in studying this issue, don't sit there and harp on the difference, look for the reason - for the difference. As some have noted, I too am apprehensive in a sense, to put something out here if you are not going to look into it for yourself.

Consider Annie, and go back and read:

Ahaziah's dad died at the age of 40 - II KINGS 8:17
Ahaziah began to reign at 22 - II KINGS 8:26
This goes along with his appointment on/in the 12th year reign of his uncle, Joram - II KINGS 8:25
( just so you wont cry out on the 11th year [iI KINGS9 :29] ) On/in the 11th year Joram ruled alone. The 12th year Joram ruled in behalf of his brother Ahaziah, who was hurt-II KINGS 1:2- then died a year later- II KINGS 1:17 ( Also compare I KINGS 22:51 and II KINGS 3:1)

Athalia was the daughter of Ahab and the sister of Joram - II KINGS 8:27
And after ruling for 20 years under his mama, Ahaziah joined elbows with Joram against Syria- II KINGS8:28
This also was the time for his 42nd birthday.

Annie, if you will, go and read carefully these accounts as written in the KJV. They clearly describe the two different times in which Ahaziah reigned, and the two different circumstances - that is all that it is. If you will look for yourself, and not run to "what saith the Bible correctors"; you will see it. At least I hope you will. I left out a lot of Scripture that would further help you to see, but should you go it yourself, you will see them also.


Now as for the joke about the supposed "contradiction" on the number of horsemen. There has been numerous studies showing the difference in numbering systems in the Bible, your mentioned text selection is just a classic example of such.

Just to give you a little cheese for the bait to see if you will go and study for yourself ( and not trust the Bible "correcting" consensus). Consider the numbering example; the chariots containing 10 horsemen. 700 times 10 = 7,000. It is similar to how modern armies number "companies" a unit can consist of many men, but is refered to as a single unit for different reasons. Go look for yourself, take God's word for it, and take God's word on it.

mksj1611, Thanks for taking the time to respond! I will indeed look into the passages you mentioned to see if it adds up. As I said before, sometimes these contradictions can be explained by looking at other scriptures/records. That could very well be the case with this one.

On the other hand, your "different numbering systems" explanation is weak. "Company" (which indicates a group of people) is different than "chariot" (a single small conveyance carrying one or two riders, pulled by less than ten horses). The passages both indicate (using the word and ) that the horsemen were in addition to the chariots, not included in them. "Chariots" is listed separately from "horsemen." Even if a "chariot" did consist of ten horsemen (which is doubtful), that would make the totals 7,000 and 70,000. They still wouldn't agree. There is no "different numbering system" in play here. There is no indication that "chariots" in one passage means something different than "chariots" in the other passage.

I reckon you are hung still hung up an all the rest of the so called "goofs" in the KJV - huh?

I stand where the translators of the KJV stood...admitting that not everything was clear enough to know how to translate it perfectly, and acknowledging the continuing need to study other sources in order to determine how best to render certain verses.

OH, I almost forgot. Since the KJV is correct and accurate in it's description and explanation in the age difference of Ahaziah when he came to reign under two different times in his life ---

WHAT DOES THAT SAY FOR ALL OF THESE SO CALLED "bibles" THAT SUPPOSEDLY CORRECT THE KJV????????????????????

I'LL TELL YOU----

T.H.E.Y. A.R.E. W.R.O.N.G.

Actually, the NKJV and other translations say the same thing as the KJV (not all do, but at least three that I know of do, including the ASV and the Amplified Bible). I've already acknowledged that there is no perfect translation. But, as I've said, these contradictions have absolutely no bearing on how much I love and trust God, or how I live to please Him.

[Annie]

Ahaziah's dad died at the age of 40 - II KINGS 8:17

Yes...This number (40) has no bearing on any of the others. It is the "unnecessary information" in this word problem.

Ahaziah began to reign at 22 - II KINGS 8:26

I'm with you so far...

This goes along with his appointment on/in the 12th year reign of his uncle, Joram - II KINGS 8:25
( just so you wont cry out on the 11th year [iI KINGS9 :29] ) On/in the 11th year Joram ruled alone. The 12th year Joram ruled in behalf of his brother Ahaziah, who was hurt-II KINGS 1:2- then died a year later- II KINGS 1:17 ( Also compare I KINGS 22:51 and II KINGS 3:1)

Still following you...

Athalia was the daughter of Ahab and the sister of Joram - II KINGS 8:27

OK...

And after ruling for 20 years under his mama, Ahaziah joined elbows with Joram against Syria- II KINGS8:28
This also was the time for his 42nd birthday.

But I thought Joram had died...And where do you get the "20 years of ruling under his mama?" You have given no indication from any scripture that this is what he did. This does not add up.

Both passages read, "Ahaziah was 22 (42) years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem."

Annie, if you will, go and read carefully these accounts as written in the KJV. They clearly describe the two different times in which Ahaziah reigned, and the two different circumstances - that is all that it is. If you will look for yourself, and not run to "what saith the Bible correctors"; you will see it. At least I hope you will. I left out a lot of Scripture that would further help you to see, but should you go it yourself, you will see them also.

I have read these accounts carefully. I'll do so again, to see if I've missed anything. Right now, it looks like you've added information that isn't there. But I could be wrong.

Just so you know, I will be away from the computer the rest of today, and won't be able to check or respond to your posts. But I'll get to them when I can. Thanks for the discussion.

[John the Baptist]

It doesn't do anything to hurt it. :Green There was scripture around before the KJV, and there are scriptures in other languages contemporary with the KJV. They say the same thing, just in different languages. The KJV is merely the only accurate translation of the correct Greek and Hebrew texts in english(no I don't care to argue with you which texts are correct on this thread, I know where you stand from other threads and I believe you are wrong).

I respect your opinion, it is not my purpose to belittle the KJV. Isn't what you are saying contradicting your view of inspiration. You say that the KJV is the only perfect Bible and then you go on an say there are Scriptures in other languages contemporary with the KJV that say the same thing. If there are other languages that have perfect transaltions then it stands to reason there are other versions or translation of the Bible that are just as accurate. But I know what you will say, they were translated from the same Byzantine text type. But still there are variations.

God Bless
Greeker.

[John the Baptist]

Seth, I forgot until now that I promised you to try to get to the rest of one of your posts. Sorry I left that loose end hanging. Here it is:



Seth, which of these verses is the "perfect word of God?" They cannot both be, because God's words do not contradict one another.

2 Samuel 8:3-4 (KJV)
3 David smote also Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates.
4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen