Welcome to Gaia! ::

Many Christians say it is inerrant, but is that really a fact? Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to prove the Bible is not the Word of God, but I am telling you that it is not perfect as most Christians claim.

Yes, the authors of the Bible were divinely inspired, nevertheless, they are still human, therefore they are imperfect. Some of you would say, divinely inspired would mean God controlled these writers, that might be true, but I doubt that it is God's way of delivering his message to us.

Here are some examples of Biblical contradictions, there are only minor mistakes, but they are still mistakes after all, however, these type of contradictions are not fatal, they are only mistakes on detail. IF it says that Jesus was human, that is the one that should be taken notice.

(Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.

Who approached Jesus? (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus. He sent friends and elders of the Jews.

Was she dead or just dying? (Matthew 9:1 cool He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.

Any comments or objections? Post it here

I am suggesting that we should make a subforum for the Bible, that is what we should be aware of.

God bless us all,
Zarfione

I was trying to say that if Jesus was ONLY human and not God as well.Sorry about that, I have the habit of forgetting to specify other details. Differ in details, it is still a mistake/contradiction, therefore the Bible is errant. There is no corruption by humans in the meaning of the Bible(if one understands it perfectly), the details are the ones that corrupted.

As for the thread, I did not see it, I apologize for my mistake

Example #1: I sneezed, then I wiped my nose on my shirt. During that day I also tripped over a rock.

Example #2: Today I tripped over a stone and wiped my nose on my shirt after I had sneezed and took a tissue and blew my nose.

This is a differ in details, but it's clearly not a contradiction or mistake. In the same sense, the passages you've claimed as support of errancy are not contradictory at all, regardless of what you read into the text. Differences in details do not inherently mean a contradiction, only that one account expands upon other details while the other does not, or it explains it in a different manner. These are not errors, and likewise, the Bible is not errant or contradictory, in the big picture or in details when read with a proper exegesis.

Who was the father of Joseph?
Matthew 1:16 The father of Joseph was Jacob.
Luke 3 :23 The father of Joseph was Heli.

How many generations were there from the Babylon captivity to Christ? Matthew 1:17 Fourteen generations
Matthew 1:12-16 Thirteen generations.

Now, does this seem not contradicting to you, Spike? ( I am not trying to provoke you)

Let me just input something. Christians have been proclaiming that the Bible is inerrant for decades. If there was a single bit of solid proof to the contrary, then we would have been tossed to the side as liars with flawed doctrine a long time ago. My point is this: If there were and errs in the Bible, they would have been found a long, long time ago. dramallama

lol, Spike is our friendly-but-intimidating local advocate and Bible-toter pirate

I start feeling awkward when people talk about me. sweatdrop Though why not?

You know, I know how to speak politically correct, and I would speak more politically correct if I didn't hate political correctness so much. Honestly, sugarcoating my words doesn't work for me. Not only does my personality not allow it, but using politically-correct language really de-emphasizes what I want to say most of the time. I think there's a little too much political correctness and frankly I don't like it. I'd rather be called a fundamentalist nutjob and let people speak what's really on their mind so I can address it than be called a Christian and then grouped into a whole host of other 'groups' of Christianity which I find heretical and wouldn't catch myself dead in.

In my experience, people tend to enjoy debating with me on issues because I don't appeal to someone's emotions. I like to stick to the facts and produce it bluntly so people don't get the wrong impression. I've seen so many people use politically correct language and all it did was make the seeking person feel okay about themselves rather than address the issue and actually discuss it, or they thought it was an issue that just wasn't that important, so it didn't really help at all. I can be nicer; it's just that usually when I type with a tone, it's because I'm stressed (and for a while now, that's been an ongoing thing). I suppose I could try harder.

As for the KJV/NASB thing, I'm a former King James Onlyist, so hopefully I can help a little bit on that issue.

A common tactic by King James Onlyists is to present a list of changes in modern translations, but rather than using the manuscripts as the base, they use the King James Bible, so there's a bit of deception that even some honest people fall into. I prefer the NASB though I still enjoy the KJV. The NASB is a word-for-word translation of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts so I prefer it, but I appreciate the KJV for its artistic language which inspired a huge amount of modern language we use today (frequently without even realizing it) and it's also public domain, so you can quote it as much as you want without worrying about any copyrights.

Ultimately, the choice is up to you. There are some bad translations (like those forwarded by the Roman Catholic Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses' translation), but the KJV, NASB and a couple others are good, in my opinion.