• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Another riddle for inerrantists

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Are these verses the Word of God? *If so, why aren't they in the NIV Bible? *If not, why are they in the King James Bible?

Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14.
Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28.
Luke 17:36; 23:17;*
John 5:4.
Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29.
Romans 16:24.
 

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Is there no one who will defend the idea that the Bible is without error? Really?
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,113
Reaction score
21,519
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Is there no one who will defend the idea that the Bible is without error? Really?
The Case of the Missing Verse – John 5:4 « Kingdom Living

What happened to verse 4? The KJV decided to include it because it was in the manuscripts they had at their disposal. The NIV decided to omit it because in the 400 years since the KJV was translated much older manuscripts had surfaced that did not have that verse. Remember, the KJV was translated largely from the Textus Receptus which was a compilation of manuscripts that did not even date prior to 1100 AD. The NIV translation committee had access to manuscripts dating back within 150 years of the original documents of the New Testament.
 

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
What are those numbers?
The numbers are chapters and verses of the respective books in the Bible. These particular numbers are verses that cannot be found in the new versions of the Bible, but can be found in the King James version.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,113
Reaction score
21,519
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Ok, so the popular theory seems to be that the King James Version had a bunch of errors because it was based on the Textus Receptus which also had a bunch of errors, and the NIV has provided a somewhat more faithful interpretation by correcting some of these errors after cross referencing older manuscripts that also must contain errors, since they often disagree with each other.

So where do people get this idea about an "inerrant" "Inspired" "perfect" Bible from? Surely there must be someone on this forum who suffers under the delusion that everything in the Bible is true.
 

Goobieman

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Are these verses the Word of God? *If so, why aren't they in the NIV Bible? *If not, why are they in the King James Bible?
If you -really- want an answer, you need to ask the people that put those version of the Bible together.
I'm guessing that's no one here, and I'm guessing you know that - so all you're doing is trolling.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Are these verses the Word of God? *If so, why aren't they in the NIV Bible? *If not, why are they in the King James Bible?

Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14.
Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28.
Luke 17:36; 23:17;*
John 5:4.
Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29.
Romans 16:24.
Because the various Bible versions were all written by hand - before the printing press - for different people and to their liking at a time when most common people like you and me couldn't read. . . so it didn't matter.

I'm curious as to why you're reading and analyzing the Bible - everyone has their own reason when they choose to (religious, anti-religious, purely curious, seeking answers).

I read it when I was a teen - I had to.
 

FluffyNinja

All Warm and Fuzzy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
4,831
Reaction score
1,625
Location
Miss-uh-Sippie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Ok, so the popular theory seems to be that the King James Version had a bunch of errors because it was based on the Textus Receptus which also had a bunch of errors, and the NIV has provided a somewhat more faithful interpretation by correcting some of these errors after cross referencing older manuscripts that also must contain errors, since they often disagree with each other.

So where do people get this idea about an "inerrant" "Inspired" "perfect" Bible from? Surely there must be someone on this forum who suffers under the delusion that everything in the Bible is true.
Dude! You are such a TROLL! Is this your mission in life or something, to bait someone into arguing over miniscule, and often irrelevent, Biblical translation inconsistencies? Really? Does it just make your day to show us dumb ol' "Jesus Freaks" just how "inconsistent" the "book" we follow is? You really don't understand a great deal about faith, do you? It is sad, really.
 

Anarcho-fascist

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2009
Messages
1,069
Reaction score
264
Location
T E X A S !
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Dude! You are such a TROLL! Is this your mission in life or something, to bait someone into arguing over miniscule, and often irrelevent, Biblical translation inconsistencies? Really? Does it just make your day to show us dumb ol' "Jesus Freaks" just how "inconsistent" the "book" we follow is? You really don't understand a great deal about faith, do you? It is sad, really.
Maybe he just wants an answer from an inerrantist.
 

FluffyNinja

All Warm and Fuzzy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
4,831
Reaction score
1,625
Location
Miss-uh-Sippie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Maybe he just wants an answer from an inerrantist.
Nahhh, he's just a troll. He asks twice for someone (innerantists) to argue against his accusations, and when he gets no takers he posts this..........give up already, LOL
Panache wrote:
So where do people get this idea about an "inerrant" "Inspired" "perfect" Bible from? Surely there must be someone on this forum who suffers under the delusion that everything in the Bible is true.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,902
Reaction score
32,555
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Ok, so the popular theory seems to be that the King James Version had a bunch of errors because it was based on the Textus Receptus which also had a bunch of errors, and the NIV has provided a somewhat more faithful interpretation by correcting some of these errors after cross referencing older manuscripts that also must contain errors, since they often disagree with each other.

So where do people get this idea about an "inerrant" "Inspired" "perfect" Bible from? Surely there must be someone on this forum who suffers under the delusion that everything in the Bible is true.
of course we think the Bible is inspired and true. but that doesn't mean that we don't study it, quite the opposite.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,902
Reaction score
32,555
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Maybe he just wants an answer from an inerrantist.
more likely he saw this as a "hah! Christianity is FALSE!" argument on some other site and decided to import it here.
 

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The point is that the Bible was not miraculously preserved. Verse were added in the Textus Receptus that weren't there in earlier manuscripts. These verses were taken out in the NIV version because they were regarded as errors in the Bible. The earlier manuscripts don't all agree with each other, and contain contradictory information. Even if the originals were inerrant, the Bible you get off the bookshelf today certainly isn't.

And yet, many people will ignore everything Jesus said over a single word they think Paul said, simply because their English translation mistranslated the word arsenokoitai to mean "homosexual."

According to Jesus, all the law is summed up in the Golden Rule. (Matt 7:12) You think homophobic Christians are intolerant of gays because they want gays to be intolerant of them?

A mistranslated book simply shouldn't be the final authority on anyone's life.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,902
Reaction score
32,555
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The New Testament confirms on multiple occasions that homosexuality remains sinful, as the OT identifies it as. that isn't to say that the temptation is sinful; it is the acts. Jesus said that if you hate your brother you are spiritually guilty of murder, and made the point repeatedly that love must be shown to everyone, including the openly sinful; Christians who are hateful towards homosexuals are obviously not following Christ's teachings. however, thinking that homosexuality is sinful is not the same as showing hatred towards those who practice it.

as for the notion of 'mistranslation'; your own OP does damage to your claim. we are constantly learning more about the New Testament, we are constantly finding older copies of texts, fuller copies of texts, so on and so forth. almost as critically, we are constantly also expanding our knowledge of the early church fathers, who quoted the NT so much that we can reconstruct it in it's entirety with the exception of (as i recall) 11 verses, none of which are significant. you've chosen basically the largest division in NT Translation studies, and chosen to base your claim there that somehow we don't have the accurate teachings of Jesus and the early church?

:lol: brother, go read your OP and tell me which of those doctrines mentioned in the verses highlighted (or in the end of Mark, or anything else we could discuss) is central to the Christian Faith.
 
Top Bottom