A Brief Survey of Biblical Errancy:

Cammmpbell

Senior Member
Sep 13, 2011
5,095
519
48
Read It And Weep



What The Christian Fundamentalist Doesn't Want You To Know - A brief survey of Biblical errancy


One of the bedrock beliefs of most Christian fundamentalists is in the inerrancy of their scripture, the Bible. Indeed, if it can be shown that the English-language Bible that I can obtain at my local bookseller (usually the defined as the King James Version) is absolutely inerrant, their case that it is the word of God would be greatly strengthened.

But, if, on the other hand, it can be shown that there are clearly and unquestionably errors in the Bible, from whatever source, then the position of the fundamentalist is greatly weakened, and if it is based on inerrancy of the Bible, disproven....cont.
 
^Why not pick up the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic original version? Much is lost in the translation, dude.
 
Read It And Weep



What The Christian Fundamentalist Doesn't Want You To Know - A brief survey of Biblical errancy


One of the bedrock beliefs of most Christian fundamentalists is in the inerrancy of their scripture, the Bible. Indeed, if it can be shown that the English-language Bible that I can obtain at my local bookseller (usually the defined as the King James Version) is absolutely inerrant, their case that it is the word of God would be greatly strengthened.

But, if, on the other hand, it can be shown that there are clearly and unquestionably errors in the Bible, from whatever source, then the position of the fundamentalist is greatly weakened, and if it is based on inerrancy of the Bible, disproven....cont.

There are literally tens of thousands of errors in the bible. Everyone knows that. That's why commentaries are ten times longer than the bible, trying to explain away all the discrepancies.
 
There are literally tens of thousands of errors in the bible. Everyone knows that. That's why commentaries are ten times longer than the bible, trying to explain away all the discrepancies.

Silly me. I thought the commentaries were to comment on the verses. Go figure.
 
There are literally tens of thousands of errors in the bible. Everyone knows that. That's why commentaries are ten times longer than the bible, trying to explain away all the discrepancies.

Silly me. I thought the commentaries were to comment on the verses. Go figure.

You are absolutely right. For instance it says Noah took two of all species onto the ark.

The commentary will tell you how what appears to be an impossible task, getting all these animals on unstable vessel is all very logical. some even tell you how they did not have to be fed and watered.

That takes some doing.
 
One of the bedrock beliefs of most Christian fundamentalists is in the inerrancy of their scripture, the Bible. Indeed, if it can be shown that the English-language Bible that I can obtain at my local bookseller (usually the defined as the King James Version) is absolutely inerrant, their case that it is the word of God would be greatly strengthened.

Wrong, shithead. Christian Fundamentalists only claim the original autographs are inspired, not the copies and not the translations. (I've never met anyone who claims the KJV is a perfect translation.)

1. As for bats being birds, where are the feathers? The skin-covered wings, and the hair are good clues that these aren't birds. Maybe a human author of Leviticus might think so, but this is God that is supposed to be writing this. If God created the bats, he surely knew he wasn't creating a bird and wouldn't have said he was.

What Liberals and God Damned Jews claim are errors are not proven errors, often far from it. For example, it's not an error for the Bible to identify a bat as a bird because the modern definition of a bird as an animal with feathers didn't exist at the time. Back in ancient times, where small animal meat came from hunting, those people would have been far more familiar with bats than we are, when all our food comes from the grocery store, which doesn't sell bats. It's pretty stupid to think that the author of Leviticus would write about bats and not know they didn't have feathers, but this is what the shitheads must believe.

A lot of these alleged errors are the same kind of stupid bullshit libtards make up on any issue to promote their agenda, like claiming Zimmerman faked his wounds, and pointing to a fuzzy video, after he'd been cleaned up, as an offer of evidence. Only shitheads fall for that sort of thing.
 
^Why not pick up the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic original version? Much is lost in the translation, dude.

Although some things are lost in translation, that line of argument will not suffice if there are different descriptions of an event that has been translated.

For instance, many people believed that Mark 16:15-18 contains a mistake.

But a topic from this reference of Mark may have roots in other parts of the book of Mark as well as the Book of Matthews and Luke.

The quote I am referring to is Mark 16:18 in which it is climed that believers can drink deadly poisons and will not be harmed.

The root of this seems to come from a discussion between Mark and Jesus when Jesus proclaims that what one eats is eliminated by the stomach and pass out (Mark 7:19, Matthew 15:17 and I believe there is a reference in the book of Luke, but I need to sit down and find the exact quote to be sure of.) Jesus proclaims this statement about the stomach when the Jews asked Jesus if he was going to wash his hands, and Jesus condemned the Jews. However, Jesus ideaabout the defilement of the spirit/heart through speech versus the defilement of the body through consumption is what is being highlighted in Mark 16:18. Unfortunately, the Jews practics and rituals are not just focused on the spirit. Their rituals identify the need for health and physical well being as part of their religious practices and good cleaning habits is part of this. Jesus disregard for the physical body is most likely a sign that there is a problem with Jesus understanding of Judaism and reality. The physical body can be defiled by what is eaten. In some cases, what a person consume can gravely injure or kill them, regardless of faith.

This proclaimation of Jesus is most likely not a translation error, and can be considered an NT errantcy that Cammmpbell may be referring to.
 
Last edited:
One of the bedrock beliefs of most Christian fundamentalists is in the inerrancy of their scripture, the Bible. Indeed, if it can be shown that the English-language Bible that I can obtain at my local bookseller (usually the defined as the King James Version) is absolutely inerrant, their case that it is the word of God would be greatly strengthened.

Wrong, shithead. Christian Fundamentalists only claim the original autographs are inspired, not the copies and not the translations. (I've never met anyone who claims the KJV is a perfect translation.)

1. As for bats being birds, where are the feathers? The skin-covered wings, and the hair are good clues that these aren't birds. Maybe a human author of Leviticus might think so, but this is God that is supposed to be writing this. If God created the bats, he surely knew he wasn't creating a bird and wouldn't have said he was.

What Liberals and God Damned Jews claim are errors are not proven errors, often far from it. For example, it's not an error for the Bible to identify a bat as a bird because the modern definition of a bird as an animal with feathers didn't exist at the time. Back in ancient times, where small animal meat came from hunting, those people would have been far more familiar with bats than we are, when all our food comes from the grocery store, which doesn't sell bats. It's pretty stupid to think that the author of Leviticus would write about bats and not know they didn't have feathers, but this is what the shitheads must believe.

A lot of these alleged errors are the same kind of stupid bullshit libtards make up on any issue to promote their agenda, like claiming Zimmerman faked his wounds, and pointing to a fuzzy video, after he'd been cleaned up, as an offer of evidence. Only shitheads fall for that sort of thing.

I am not talking about misnaming birds.

What I am referring to are contradictions often mutually exclusive that occur by the thousands throughout the Bible. Some are inconsequential, obviously the result of some careless or overzealous scribe. Some more consequential such as there being two creation stories and and the inexplicable wives for Cain.

There are errors. Thousands of them both big and small and the problem is that if there are errors.........and there are.........then what is it in the Bible that can be absolutely trusted?

The following is offered simply as an example of what is rampant throughout the entire bible.

2 Samuel 6:23 says “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death”

2 Samuel 21:8 says “But the king took…the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul”
 
One of the bedrock beliefs of most Christian fundamentalists is in the inerrancy of their scripture, the Bible. Indeed, if it can be shown that the English-language Bible that I can obtain at my local bookseller (usually the defined as the King James Version) is absolutely inerrant, their case that it is the word of God would be greatly strengthened.

Wrong, shithead. Christian Fundamentalists only claim the original autographs are inspired, not the copies and not the translations. (I've never met anyone who claims the KJV is a perfect translation.)

1. As for bats being birds, where are the feathers? The skin-covered wings, and the hair are good clues that these aren't birds. Maybe a human author of Leviticus might think so, but this is God that is supposed to be writing this. If God created the bats, he surely knew he wasn't creating a bird and wouldn't have said he was.

What Liberals and God Damned Jews claim are errors are not proven errors, often far from it. For example, it's not an error for the Bible to identify a bat as a bird because the modern definition of a bird as an animal with feathers didn't exist at the time. Back in ancient times, where small animal meat came from hunting, those people would have been far more familiar with bats than we are, when all our food comes from the grocery store, which doesn't sell bats. It's pretty stupid to think that the author of Leviticus would write about bats and not know they didn't have feathers, but this is what the shitheads must believe.

A lot of these alleged errors are the same kind of stupid bullshit libtards make up on any issue to promote their agenda, like claiming Zimmerman faked his wounds, and pointing to a fuzzy video, after he'd been cleaned up, as an offer of evidence. Only shitheads fall for that sort of thing.

I am not talking about misnaming birds.

What I am referring to are contradictions often mutually exclusive that occur by the thousands throughout the Bible. Some are inconsequential, obviously the result of some careless or overzealous scribe. Some more consequential such as there being two creation stories and and the inexplicable wives for Cain.

There are errors. Thousands of them both big and small and the problem is that if there are errors.........and there are.........then what is it in the Bible that can be absolutely trusted?

The following is offered simply as an example of what is rampant throughout the entire bible.

2 Samuel 6:23 says “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death”

2 Samuel 21:8 says “But the king took…the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul”

She never bore a child, but she had stepchildren. Try again.
 
Wrong, shithead. Christian Fundamentalists only claim the original autographs are inspired, not the copies and not the translations. (I've never met anyone who claims the KJV is a perfect translation.)



What Liberals and God Damned Jews claim are errors are not proven errors, often far from it. For example, it's not an error for the Bible to identify a bat as a bird because the modern definition of a bird as an animal with feathers didn't exist at the time. Back in ancient times, where small animal meat came from hunting, those people would have been far more familiar with bats than we are, when all our food comes from the grocery store, which doesn't sell bats. It's pretty stupid to think that the author of Leviticus would write about bats and not know they didn't have feathers, but this is what the shitheads must believe.

A lot of these alleged errors are the same kind of stupid bullshit libtards make up on any issue to promote their agenda, like claiming Zimmerman faked his wounds, and pointing to a fuzzy video, after he'd been cleaned up, as an offer of evidence. Only shitheads fall for that sort of thing.

I am not talking about misnaming birds.

What I am referring to are contradictions often mutually exclusive that occur by the thousands throughout the Bible. Some are inconsequential, obviously the result of some careless or overzealous scribe. Some more consequential such as there being two creation stories and and the inexplicable wives for Cain.

There are errors. Thousands of them both big and small and the problem is that if there are errors.........and there are.........then what is it in the Bible that can be absolutely trusted?

The following is offered simply as an example of what is rampant throughout the entire bible.

2 Samuel 6:23 says “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death”

2 Samuel 21:8 says “But the king took…the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul”

She never bore a child, but she had stepchildren. Try again.

Try again. Stepchildren are not the "sons" of those that did not bear them.
 
I am not talking about misnaming birds.

What I am referring to are contradictions often mutually exclusive that occur by the thousands throughout the Bible. Some are inconsequential, obviously the result of some careless or overzealous scribe. Some more consequential such as there being two creation stories and and the inexplicable wives for Cain.

There are errors. Thousands of them both big and small and the problem is that if there are errors.........and there are.........then what is it in the Bible that can be absolutely trusted?

The following is offered simply as an example of what is rampant throughout the entire bible.

2 Samuel 6:23 says “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death”

2 Samuel 21:8 says “But the king took…the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul”

She never bore a child, but she had stepchildren. Try again.

Try again. Stepchildren are not the "sons" of those that did not bear them.

Yes, they are when she has custody of them. http://www.duncanproductions.com/SBCOC/faq/contradictions/michal_sons.htm

Keep trying.
 
Last edited:
She never bore a child, but she had stepchildren. Try again.

Try again. Stepchildren are not the "sons" of those that did not bear them.

Yes, they are when she has custody of them. Michal Childless vs. 5 sons

Keep trying.

ROFLMAO!!!
This is exactly what I meant when I said bible commentary can run to ridiculous extremes in trying to rationalize inconsistent bible verses.

That is exactly what your link does. The final paragraph says that if it is a copyist error is does not mean anything. The bible is full of such "copyist" errors.
 
There are literally tens of thousands of errors in the bible. Everyone knows that. That's why commentaries are ten times longer than the bible, trying to explain away all the discrepancies.

Silly me. I thought the commentaries were to comment on the verses. Go figure.

You are absolutely right. For instance it says Noah took two of all species onto the ark.

The commentary will tell you how what appears to be an impossible task, getting all these animals on unstable vessel is all very logical. some even tell you how they did not have to be fed and watered.

That takes some doing.

I suppose it depends on the commentary. However, people aren't necessarily logical. nor do outside observers really understand what happens.

Of course, this is completely different than what you were saying
 
One of the bedrock beliefs of most Christian fundamentalists is in the inerrancy of their scripture, the Bible. Indeed, if it can be shown that the English-language Bible that I can obtain at my local bookseller (usually the defined as the King James Version) is absolutely inerrant, their case that it is the word of God would be greatly strengthened.

Wrong, shithead. Christian Fundamentalists only claim the original autographs are inspired, not the copies and not the translations. (I've never met anyone who claims the KJV is a perfect translation.)

1. As for bats being birds, where are the feathers? The skin-covered wings, and the hair are good clues that these aren't birds. Maybe a human author of Leviticus might think so, but this is God that is supposed to be writing this. If God created the bats, he surely knew he wasn't creating a bird and wouldn't have said he was.

What Liberals and God Damned Jews claim are errors are not proven errors, often far from it. For example, it's not an error for the Bible to identify a bat as a bird because the modern definition of a bird as an animal with feathers didn't exist at the time. Back in ancient times, where small animal meat came from hunting, those people would have been far more familiar with bats than we are, when all our food comes from the grocery store, which doesn't sell bats. It's pretty stupid to think that the author of Leviticus would write about bats and not know they didn't have feathers, but this is what the shitheads must believe.

A lot of these alleged errors are the same kind of stupid bullshit libtards make up on any issue to promote their agenda, like claiming Zimmerman faked his wounds, and pointing to a fuzzy video, after he'd been cleaned up, as an offer of evidence. Only shitheads fall for that sort of thing.

I am not talking about misnaming birds.

What I am referring to are contradictions often mutually exclusive that occur by the thousands throughout the Bible. Some are inconsequential, obviously the result of some careless or overzealous scribe. Some more consequential such as there being two creation stories and and the inexplicable wives for Cain.

There are errors. Thousands of them both big and small and the problem is that if there are errors.........and there are.........then what is it in the Bible that can be absolutely trusted?

The following is offered simply as an example of what is rampant throughout the entire bible.

2 Samuel 6:23 says “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death”

2 Samuel 21:8 says “But the king took…the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul”

This is what you call consequential?
 
I am not talking about misnaming birds.

The link in the OP talked about birds.

2 Samuel 6:23 says “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death”

2 Samuel 21:8 says “But the king took…the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul”

If you had quoted the full verse of 2 Samuel 21:8, the apparent contradiction would have vanished. "But the king took…the five sons of Michal [wife of David and] the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel..." That implies they weren't her children. Adriel was the husband of Saul's other daughter Merab. The five sons were Merab's.

But, even if the context didn't provide the resolution for the alleged contradiction, you'd still be assuming a contradiction, that there's not some detail being left out that would resolve the apparent contradiction.
 
I am not talking about misnaming birds.

The link in the OP talked about birds.

2 Samuel 6:23 says “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death”

2 Samuel 21:8 says “But the king took…the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul”

If you had quoted the full verse of 2 Samuel 21:8, the apparent contradiction would have vanished. "But the king took…the five sons of Michal [wife of David and] the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel..." That implies they weren't her children. Adriel was the husband of Saul's other daughter Merab. The five sons were Merab's.

But, even if the context didn't provide the resolution for the alleged contradiction, you'd still be assuming a contradiction, that there's not some detail being left out that would resolve the apparent contradiction.

"The 5 sons mentioned in 2 Sam 21:8 are apparently the sons of Merab, since it was she who was given to Adriel as wife. Some scholars refer this difference to a copyist error, since the author obviously knew that Merab was given to Adriel and that Michal was childless. The NIV (and others) lists Merab in place of Michal in this text on the basis of two Hebrew manuscripts, and some Septuagint manuscripts and the Syriac."

Implies coulda woulda, shoulda. That is exactly my point. You must read something in to get certainty or you must peruse texts other than the holy Bible. Texts that are not the inspired word of god and often not even the implied word of God just other interpretations that may or may not also contain copyist errors. In the above we have a scholar going the implication route and and again referring to a copyist error. Well, was it or wasn't it? We will never know for sure and THAT is the problem.
 
"The 5 sons mentioned in 2 Sam 21:8 are apparently the sons of Merab, since it was she who was given to Adriel as wife. Some scholars refer this difference to a copyist error, since the author obviously knew that Merab was given to Adriel and that Michal was childless. The NIV (and others) lists Merab in place of Michal in this text on the basis of two Hebrew manuscripts, and some Septuagint manuscripts and the Syriac."

Implies coulda woulda, shoulda. That is exactly my point. You must read something in to get certainty or you must peruse texts other than the holy Bible. Texts that are not the inspired word of god and often not even the implied word of God just other interpretations that may or may not also contain copyist errors. In the above we have a scholar going the implication route and and again referring to a copyist error. Well, was it or wasn't it? We will never know for sure and THAT is the problem.

If Michal raised her sister's children, there's no error. But, let's assume that it should be Marab named with the children, there would be an error. Fundamentalists only claim the original autographs are without error. And, it doesn't really matter if a copyist accidentally replaced Marab's name with Michal's. We still know those are Marab's children, and no doctrine hinges on it (nor, should any doctrine hinge on one verse, for a variety of reasons).

We have very good reason to believe our modern copies are highly reliable, in spite of some possible copy errors. It's crass to argue that if some likely errors are found that the Bible is worthless. And, most of those alleged errors aren't likely any sort of error (e.g. listing bats along with some birds as unclean).

There are actually lots of copy errors. We know this from the variation of manuscripts, as well as God Damned Jews (specifically, a satanic coven known as the Masoretes) deliberately changing scripture, and trying to destroy copies predating their tampering. But, none of this makes the Bible significantly unreliable. The Jews couldn't destroy everything predating their tampering.
 

Forum List

Back
Top