It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Defending Inerrancy in the Bible...

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 03:20 AM

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Akragon

only one Bible defines all the words in it by the words context, and has its own built in cross reference system.

You forgot to mention that it also contained the Apocrypha (without any stipulations that they are uncanonical as far as I can tell, see other examples of other translators and scholars below). And that comment you made about "RC dominated ones" is rather hypocritical if you have the Roman Catholic Priest Erasmus and his TR listed on the left, which added 1 John 5:7 under pressure from the RC hierarchy, a whole Greek manuscript was fabricated to give it more credibility (as if it was in the Greek manuscripts). Is that Christian behaviour?

King James Bible
Deuteronomy 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Deuteronomy 12:32
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

New World Translation

Deuteronomy 4:2
2 You must not add to the word that I am commanding you, neither must you take away from it, so as to keep the commandments of Jehovah your God that I am commanding you.
Deuteronomy 12:32
32 Every word that I am commanding you is what you should be careful to do. You must not add to it nor take away from it.


The Greek word a·poʹkry·phos is used in its original sense in three Bible texts as referring to things “carefully concealed.” (Mr 4:22; Lu 8:17; Col 2:3) As applied to writings, it originally referred to those not read publicly, hence “concealed” from others. Later, however, the word took on the meaning of spurious or uncanonical, and today is used most commonly to refer to the additional writings declared part of the Bible canon by the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (1546). Catholic writers refer to these books as deuterocanonical, meaning “of the second (or later) canon,” as distinguished from protocanonical.

These additional writings are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (of Solomon), Ecclesiasticus (not Ecclesiastes), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, supplements to Esther, and three additions to Daniel: The Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna and the Elders, and The Destruction of Bel and the Dragon. The exact time of their being written is uncertain, but the evidence points to a time no earlier than the second or third century B.C.E.

Evidence Against Canonicity.
Differing Catholic views. The trend toward including these additional writings as canonical was primarily initiated by Augustine (354-430 C.E.), although even he in later works acknowledged that there was a definite distinction between the books of the Hebrew canon and such “outside books.” However, the Catholic Church, following Augustine’s lead, included such additional writings in the canon of sacred books determined by the Council of Carthage in 397 C.E. It was, however, not until as late as 1546 C.E., at the Council of Trent, that the Roman Catholic Church definitely confirmed its acceptance of these additions into its catalog of Bible books, and this action was deemed necessary because, even within the church, opinion was still divided over these writings. John Wycliffe, the Roman Catholic priest and scholar who, with the subsequent help of Nicholas of Hereford, in the 14th century made the first translation of the Bible into English, did include the Apocrypha in his work, but in the preface to this translation declared such writings to be “without authority of belief.” Dominican Cardinal Cajetan, foremost Catholic theologian of his time (1469-1534 C.E.) and called by Clement VII the “lamp of the Church,” also differentiated between the books of the true Hebrew canon and the Apocryphal works, appealing to the writings of Jerome as an authority.

It is to be noted as well that the Council of Trent did not accept all the writings previously approved by the earlier Council of Carthage but dropped three of these: the Prayer of Manasses and 1 and 2 Esdras (not the 1 and 2 Esdras that, in the Catholic Douay Bible, correspond with Ezra and Nehemiah). Thus, these three writings that had appeared for over 1,100 years in the approved Latin Vulgate were now excluded.
Commenting on such postapostolic Apocryphal writings, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Vol. 1, p. 166) states: “Many of them are trivial, some are highly theatrical, some are disgusting, even loathsome.” (Edited by G. A. Buttrick, 1962) Funk and Wagnalls New Standard Bible Dictionary (1936, p. 56) comments: “They have been the fruitful source of sacred legends and ecclesiastical traditions. It is to these books that we must look for the origin of some of the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church.”

Source: Apocrypha: Insight, Volume 1

The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible.

The website above is also not clear about whether or not these books are divinely inspired or should be considered canonical. It seems to promote the notion that I have referred to as the agnostic philosophy of vagueness regarding this topic (as if it isn't clear). At least I got that impression. Reading it again, I actually get the impression that they are speaking in favor of the Apocrypha because of mentioning things like:

Fragments of Dead Sea Scrolls dating back to before 70 A.D. contained parts of the apocrypha books in Hebrew, including Sirach and Tobit [source].

Keep this in mind when reading the following apocryphal books. Martin Luther said, "Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read." (King James Version Defended page 98.)

But neglecting to mention all the reasons and evidence to avoid these books and know that they are unreliable and sometimes even deceptive or directly contradicting bible teachings, or some of the other reasons that I already quoted from the insight book. More examples of that:

Tobit (Tobias). The account of a pious Jew of the tribe of Naphtali who is deported to Nineveh and who becomes blinded by having bird’s dung fall in both of his eyes.
The story was probably written originally in Aramaic and is estimated to be of about the third century B.C.E. It is obviously not inspired by God because of the superstition and error found in the narrative. Among the inaccuracies it contains is this: The account states that in his youth Tobit saw the revolt of the northern tribes, which occurred in 997 B.C.E. after Solomon’s death (Tobit 1:4, 5, JB), also that he was later deported to Nineveh with the tribe of Naphtali, in 740 B.C.E. (Tobias 1:11-13, Dy) That would mean that he lived more than 257 years. Yet Tobias 14:1-3 (Dy) says he was 102 years old at the time of his death.

So what's so "profitable and good to read" (quoting Luther) in a book written by someone who can't even count (or be honest about that)? Which is a question btw I ask myself regarding comments made by some of those who have responded to my commentary about the subject whether or not 1+1=2 as well.
edit on 11-10-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 03:27 AM

edit on 11-10-2016 by Akragon because:

posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 05:12 AM
Talking about whether or not it's wise to take your council or advice from Luther as that kingjamesbibleonline website seems to imply that it is by suggesting to keep it in mind, I wonder how they consider this council:

Certainly, the handiest trick of the propagandist is the use of outright lies. Consider, for example, the lies that Martin Luther wrote in 1543 about the Jews in Europe: “They have poisoned wells, made assassinations, kidnaped children . . . They are venomous, bitter, vindictive, tricky serpents, assassins, and children of the devil who sting and work harm.” His exhortation to so-called Christians? “Set fire to their synagogues or schools . . . Their houses [should] also be razed and destroyed.”

Source: The Manipulation of Information: Awake!—2000
I think I'll take note of Isaac Newton's warning and keep that in mind instead, at least that man cared about truth, accuracy, reason, understanding, knowledge, insight, our thinking abilities, honesty and wisdom:

...the more learned and quick-sighted men, as Luther, Erasmus, Bullinger, Grotius, and some others, would not dissemble their knowledge...

Source: An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture, by Isaac Newton, honest truthseeker.

Too bad they carefully avoided any quotations from that research subject in the documentary the scenes below are taken from (which actually lasts more than 50 minutes):

edit on 11-10-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 05:06 AM
a reply to: whereislogic

Too bad they carefully avoided any quotations from that research subject in the documentary the scenes below are taken from (which actually lasts more than 50 minutes)

That video was terrible!

cut up and stitched together to push an agenda...

the actual video on Newton was pretty good.. the longer version

edit on 7-6-2017 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 01:04 PM

originally posted by: Akragon

Is the devil tied up or free to roam?

2 Peter 2:4 
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

Jude 1:6 
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.


Job 1:7 
And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

1 Peter 5:8 
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

Seriously, you want everyone to appear an apologist, to enter your discussion? That's why i dont discuss these topics.

Anyone whose read the Bible believes differently from those who have had the Bible read to them. I noticed you posted in English. Dont think the bible was written in English.

And btw, the Word of God is inerrant. The Bible is not the word of God, it is a collection of 80 books and letters by nearly as many authors, that mention the Word of God extensively. *Insert Buddhist 'om' here*

The Bible teaches that Satan and man are in the same cage. What's your prejudice leading to discredit that Biblical fact? A preacher? Sunday school? Help me out. How can men be an authority on other men's ideas anyway? They are not. They are authorities on a personal agenda of manipulation and perversion.
edit on 10-6-2017 by BigBangWasAnEcho because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 02:48 PM
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Here's an example that I clicked at random.Text

No one (except Jesus) has ascended into heaven.

John 3:13
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven.

True. At the time that Jesus spoke this all spirits of all souls were imprisoned in Sheol.

Some have ascended into heaven.

True. But only after Jesus died and offered His kingdom to the justified that were in Sheol and not before.

Genesis 5:24
And Enoch walked with God: and he [was] not; for God took him.

True. God did take Enoch but the scriptures do not say where God put Enoch. Enoch could have been and may still be in the same place as Lazarus was before Jesus restored him. No one can say for certainty regardless of their theology. The kingdom of heaven was not offered till after Jesus died.

2 Kings 2:11
And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, [there appeared] a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

True. But the heaven That Elijah was taken up to was this first heaven and not the third heaven. How do we know this? By the fact that if it were in the third heaven there is not the terrestrial substance such as a whirlwind is in this terrestrial realm. Our moon landings can verify that whirlwinds can not exist beyond this first heaven.

Hebrews 11:5
By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

True. The body of Enoch as well as the bodies of Moses and Elijah were never found. Both Moses and Elijah's spirits were not in heaven [as no man had ascended as yet] as is cited on the Mt. of transfiguration when Jesus called them up from Sheol and not down from heaven. The Transfiguration of Moses and Elijah was while Jesus was still alive and His kingdom was not offered as yet. Likewise Enoch's spirit was in Sheol in the Bosom of Abraham or as some may believe, in limbo.

These errors are not errors in the bible but errors of not understanding what is in the bible.

posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 06:12 PM
a reply to: Akragon

The simple explanation is that the bible is NOT one book, it is many books compiled over many years... Written by men (inspired or otherwise) Thus it is subject to mans flaws... It can not be inerrant.

There is no way on any earth that any one can prove or disprove the inerrancy of the NT literature without the autographs of those letters. In fact the same applies to Torah. As much as anyone wants to approve or disapprove any sort of discrepancy of any authors work, one must have the original word for word autograph and we have not even one autograph to debate. It all amounts to theology because facts do not exist as yet.

posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 10:02 PM
a reply to: Seede

Isn't that the same as saying theres no way to prove anyone in the NT or OT ever existed?

In any case this is an old thread i bring back on occasion just for kicks...

Fact is there are many people who claim the bible as it is (whatever version said person prefers) has no errors...

The point of this thread is to show that to be utter nonsense regardless of the version you prefer

posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 04:05 AM
a reply to: Akragon
The original documentary had too much picture painting and a real propagandistic agenda (Nova produces what their buyers want, their buyers are Roman Catholic and Jews mostly, or people who have significant business dealings with those markets and market handlers, most of the viewing public is Roman Catholic, Trinitarian, philosophical naturalists who are into "dark" mysteries, etc. Nova and the whole system caters to the public, it tells them what they want to hear, it has to be entertaining as well, that's why in the original documentary you'll also hear terms like "dark" and "magician"; the people they're interviewing on the subject of the Trinity are Trinitarians). I couldn't stomach it anymore. Truths were still in it though. The excessive twisting and drawing attention away from the real points that Newton was making has now been mostly removed; cutting the originally documentary of 50 minutes down to less than 15.

His interest in chemistry was a total non-subject to tell fancy tales about alchemy and a supposed "dark magician" that are way more entertaining and pleasing to the ears than hearing the simple truths about the doctrine of the Trinity that Newton discovered as well (along with discovering evidence for the existence of God and gaining understanding about that subject and the origin of life and the univere including our solar system).

And the way they talked about the year 2060 was just an incredible twist of what Newton said about that subject (this might be from the other documentary, there are 2 with the same agenda, very similar and focussing on alchemy and terms like "dark" and "magician"). That agenda being primarily catering to the public, producing something that will help with viewer ratings. You're not going to or don't want to alienate the Trinitarians or philosophical naturalists (atheist and agnostic; one could even include theistic evolutionists) when you're trying to do that.
edit on 19-6-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 23 2017 @ 06:26 AM
Interesting 2 years old thread. A list of very few Bible contradictions. Out of 3 pages, only one post explain the roaming Satan. I have few more contradictions with me, but looking at the lack of interest in defending the Bible inerrancy, I guess I should withold my own. Where are the christians when you need one?

Anyway, Akrogon, The god of living vs the god of living and dead refers to 2 consubstantial persons of God. Roman 14 refers to the hypostases the Son, Jesus Christ. Luke 20 refer to hypostases the Father. Technically they are distinct consubstantial persons of God although They share the same essence.

Dont ask me what it means. I dont understand it either. It's a trinity thing. 3 consubstantial persons - hypostases - in one substance, essense or nature.

edit on 23-6-2017 by EasternShadow because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 23 2017 @ 01:14 PM
a reply to: EasternShadow

I dont understand it either. It's a trinity thing. 3 consubstantial persons - hypostases - in one substance, essense or nature.

Right... thats called Christian dogma

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in