| Subject: Skeptic's Annotated Bible - Corrected and Explained |
Author:
Jason Gastrich
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 08/ 2/04 4:02am
In reply to:
Jaime X
's message, "errors in the Bible" on 07/23/04 12:14am
>>>Jason:
>>>
>>>>Dear Forum Members and Readers,
>>>>
>>>>I pray you are well, today.
>>>
>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>>>Have you found an error in the Bible? Have you
>heard
>>>>an argument against the Bible's inerrancy that you
>>>>could not answer?
>>>
>>>Exactly what kind of errors do you mean? Say, for
>>>example, in one part the bible says, "Duane ate 33
>>>cheeseburgers," and then in a different part, clearly
>>>talking about the same event says, "Duane ate 44
>>>cheeseburgers." (of course, neither I, nor
>>>cheeseburgers are in the bible - I only use this as
>an
>>>example of the type of error I'm talking about)
>>>
>>>I mean, this sounds like it could be attributed to a
>>>typo, or maybe miscommunication as the story was
>>>handed down, etc. My point is, do you consider this
>>>type of inconsistency acceptable? Or would there be
>>>an explanation required to show that there aren't two
>>>contradictory facts?
>>>
>>>Here's one:
>>>
>>>2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was
>>>Ahaziah when he began to reign...", but 2 Chronicles
>>>22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when
>he
>>>began to reign..."
>>>
>>>See what I mean? Let me know what you think.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>Duane
>>
>>Hi Duane,
>>
>>Thanks for your message.
>>
>>You are referring to a copyist error. Some apologists
>>think there are a number of these. However, I do not.
>>
>>2 Kings 8:26 tells us that Ahaziah was 22 years old
>>when he became king. If he was 42 years old, then it
>>wouldn't make any sense.
>>
>>The translations that indicate he was 42 are
>>incorrect. Only the original manuscripts and modern
>>translations that indicate he was 22 are correct.
>>Therefore, we can either call this a copyist error or
>>an error in some of the modern translations (and even
>>some of the ancient ones). Fortunately, some
>>translations and manuscripts have gotten this number
>>correct.
>>
>>Incidentally, omissions are not errors. It is
>>reasonable for one author to record certain details
>>that another author does not. The Bible is a canon
>>and was meant to be read as a whole; not by pulling
>>words or phrases out of context.
>>
>>God bless,
>>Jason
>Greetings,
>In reading the response to this, i am almost forced to
>ask, "Isn't that still an error?" even a copyist
>error that has creep in is, indeed, an error. There
>are a few of these instances in the KJV. Although we
>have a newer standard Bible, the question is about
>errors. And thast was something that had to be
>correct, hence, an error.
>I believe in the Word of God, yet I have a hard time
>declaring that the Bible is inerrant. And this is the
>reason. There are errors. Yet, there are no errors
>when it comes to every word spoken out of the mouth of
>God. I have read many different web sites that point
>out errors, discrepancies, contradictions, etc. Yet
>not one of them can site any of the fore mentioned
>when it came to God speaking or doing something. That
>is what i believe in.
>Copy errors are errors. nuff said/ Yet there are no
>errors in the Word of God
>I remain,
>Jaime X
Hi Jaime,
Thanks for your post.
In the case above, there are both English translations and ancient manuscripts that get the number correct. Therefore, we can't say that God's Word is in error. Some of the manuscripts that were dervied from the original autographs got it correct, so we can conclude that the original autographs were correct as well.
You mentioned errors or your thinking that there was an error in the Bible. Feel free to post it and I will reply.
Sincerely,
Jason
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 