-55 votes

3 Good Examples of Bible Errancy

- Daniel 12:2 raises the prospect of a third class of people, who will not be resurrected to a glorious afterlife, nor to an inglorious punishment, but will simply stay dead. This is not in keeping with the traditional Christian teaching on such matters, which is based on passages like John 5:28-29

UPDATE: Kudos to tfichter who has succeeded in finding a potentially valid resolution for Daniel 12:2 by using a different original language literal translation than the one I used. "tfichter"'s comment can be found here:
- http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2857934

However, because Gods chosen translators/linguists were apparently unable to correctly translate this verse for modern day Bibles, a red flag needs to be raised, that perhaps Gods original choice of words for this verse was less than perfect. Remember, God claims to have invented the languages and to know the future (this supposedly all-knowing God would therefore have foreseen this ambiguity). And how many of even todays Christians in third world countries could reasonably be expected to search out the correct meaning of this verse? Most of them do not even have access to the Internet. And we still do not know with certainty that tflichter's explanation is the correct one. It's almost as if the Bible was soliciting to receive a black eye here (this seems woefully sloppy).

- The Bible (apparently regardless of which translation we look at) clearly contradicts itself regarding Jesus' last words on the cross:
Luke 23:46 ""Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last."
John 19:30 ""It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."

Note: There Can Only Be One Final Phrase Uttered. Neither of the above two verses were stated in context to possibly be the second or third to the last phrase uttered by Jesus, but rather the final phrase uttered.

- God's name Yahweh, was given to Abraham (in Genesis), and yet later (in Exodus) was stated to have been kept from Abraham and others:
Genesis 15:7 "And he said to him [Abram], I am Yahweh who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess."
Exodus 6:3 "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob [each individually], as God Almighty, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them."
[The reader can verify the use of the name Yahweh in these verses from the original Hebrew using the online Interlinear translation at http://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm ]

Bonus: Christian Bible Scholar Reluctantly Says Jesus Did Not Die On Cross

- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7849852/Jesus-did-n...

The Positive Message Behind This Post:

Many organized religions, including those stemming from Christianity/The Bible, have misrepresented the most important thing in the universe, which of course is love. Without understanding the true principles of love in the proper context, humanity is helplessly hindered from achieving world peace.

This is why I wrote the article "Sowing The Seeds For A Peace Revolution". It offers the opportunity for the general public to properly understand the truth of this matter. People really ought to read this article in its entirety:

- http://www.dailypaul.com/241312/sowing-the-seeds-for-a-peace...

It is well and good if people wish to offer their two cents regarding the 3+ prospective Bible contradictions discussed throughout this thread. However, MORE THAN A THOUSAND TIMES OF GREATER IMPORTANCE is correctly understanding and applying the true essence of love.

So who then will be the first Christian to acknowledge that to this end I have INDEED spoken the truth?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Hi Gang - Perhaps More Interesting Than This Thread Which ...

... died over a year ago and then somehow was raised up again from the dust, is my latest post which I do not think anyone has yet seen:

How The Bible Fused Two Jesus's Into One

- http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3304636

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us: http://www.rense.com/general96/whatare.html
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

how dare you attack the bible

how dare you attack the bible on this here website! it shall not be questioned

SteveMT's picture

Did Jesus die for everyone? Biblical answer: No

I thought that Jesus died as the sacrificial "Lamb of God" who takes away the sins of the world for all sinners. Wrong, He didn't for every sinner although the Bible says this:

Romans 5:6
For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.

Did Jesus die for the likes of even Hitler and Chairman Mao? I say yes, Jesus died for all of us, even for them. Had they repented of their sins and accepted the teachings of Jesus, then they, along with the murderer who died with Jesus, should have all gained salvation. Murders, rapists, pedophiles, prostitutes, i.e. were given access to celestial realms by the sacrifice of Jesus, except for two people, who were shown no mercy post-crucifixion, post-resurrection, and post-Holy Spirit. These two people were shown no mercy, and they were given no second chances although we are told by Jesus Himself to forgive our brother seventy times seven. What am I talking about?

Surely everyone knows this story for it is preached to this day for people to maximally donate to the church (money, of all things!). Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) were shown no mercy after Jesus died for all sinners, .... except apparently these two. Whoever wrote this story should be burning in hell, IMO.

What makes this story an abomination is the hypocrisy that, of all people, Peter had them killed. Peter, the one who denied the very existence of Jesus three times, BUT WAS FORGIVEN. The same Peter who is recognized as the first Pope of the Catholic Church. Instead of Peter saying "although you did a good thing by selling your land and giving most of the money to the Church, you lied to us about holding back some of this money. However, as Almighty God has forgiven me for three times denying Christ ever existed, He will also forgive you through the blood of Christ. Now go and sin no more." Instead, Ananias and Sapphira were both killed by Peter without remorse or a second thought. Peter is a hypocrite; he quickly forgot his forgiven sins and didn't do likewise.

The Biblical apologists will try to justify this hypocrisy and the killing of these people post-crucifixion, post-resurrection, and post-Holy Spirit, as correct and totally consistent with the Bible. Conclusion: All manner of abomination is covered by the blood of Christ except the holding back of money. This message stinks to heaven itself, which is why I say that whoever wrote this story should be burning in hell. Please, don't try to justify the supposed correctness of these killings.

1) Peter did not kill them 2)

1) Peter did not kill them
2) You are conflating the first death with the second. Do you think that if Hitler had repented he would still be alive on earth today? Even Peter, though he was forgiven, eventually died. Forgiveness of sins doesn't mean people are immortal here and now.

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

SteveMT's picture

Whether God killed them directly or through Peter is irrelevant.

The point is that these people were killed by God without being given a second chance the way that Peter was given a second chance. Ananias and Sapphira were both Christians like Peter. They both accepted Jesus as their savior. That acceptance and their being Christians didn't matter. They were both slain as if they were both back in the Old Testament, without mercy. That is the point. The sacrifice of Jesus made no difference. All three of them made bad decisions, but only Peter was forgiven. Peter, in turn did not forgive them as he had been forgiven by God. For holding back some money, these people were both killed by God. Where is the "conflating?" There is a big difference between dying a natural death and being put to death as these people were.

You are so wrong in much of your understanding

Ananias and Sapphira were as Dathan whom the earth opened her mouth and swallowed up with many others, and like that Judas Iscariott in that they like MILLIONS today are but mere "professing Christians" but are NOT of God and have NOT been "Born Again".

God took their life not Peter and so are you saying that God is unrighteous in not giving them another chance?

You had better think again about what you are saying.

Jesus said that "NO MAN can come unto Me unless My Father which is in heaven draweth them, and those who do come unto Me will I in no wise cast out"

ALL those who die unsaved ARE NOT OF THE SHEEPFOLD OF GOD!

They are NOT "The Planting of the Lord"

Jesus DID NOT pay for their sins!

They are of their father the devil saith the Lord and will therefore perish in their sins.

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

First, I want to make a point

First, I want to make a point of accuracy: Ananias and Sapphira were NOT killed for holding back money, they were killed for lying. Peter said they were not required to give ANY money, but it was wrong that they lied and said they gave so much when they didn't.

"They were both slain as if they were both back in the Old Testament, without mercy. That is the point. The sacrifice of Jesus made no difference."

Why should Ananias and Sapphira be given preferential treatment over Dathan or Moses, people who happened to be born at a different date? How disgustingly unfair that would be to everyone born B.C. You keep saying that Peter was forgiven but A&S weren't. You seem to think that being forgiven means that one is never judged in any way, as if the blood of Jesus means there are no standards or consequences in life. Confer 1 John 5:16-17 and 1 Corinthians 11:3.

The sacrifice of Jesus covers the second death, not the first (if I am wrong, please cite a reference). How do you know A&S weren't forgiven? Being killed doesn't mean you are condemned to hell.

Let's dispense with the straw men and get to the meat of it. Isn't your real problem with this that you believe it is unfair/unjust that lying to the holy spirit is capital while denying you know Jesus isn't?

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

SteveMT's picture

Peter lied three times when he denied that Jesus ever existed.

Peter lied three times about this and was not struck down. Ananias and Sapphira both lied once. A lie is a lie. Is the Almighty not consistent? I believe that He is. Come on, bro. Rethink what you are saying about making "a point of accuracy." Ananias and Sapphira lied about money. Peter lied about the very existence of the Son of God. Which one is the more commonplace that certainly would be forgiven by the sacrifice of Jesus and which one should have been considered the abomination? You seem to be overlooking Peter's three lies. Please, let us dispense with your straw man point of inaccuracy.

"Being killed doesn't mean you are condemned to hell." I can't believe you wrote that. By your logic, then some of the people killed by God in the Great Flood might be in heaven? Why did The Almighty kill them? Because they were beyond saving. He would not have needed to drown them if at least some of them were good. By your logic, some of the people killed by the Almighty in Sodom and Gomorrah might also be in heaven? No. God strikes down people who He wants dead, not to go to heaven.

Thank You

Yes Peter did lie three times, and yes, Ananias and Sapphira both lied once. Thank you for correcting your previous error, even though you refuse to admit the mistake and even pompously accused me of the straw man.

Now, do I think that it seems reasonable to me that they were struck down for lying? No. Do I think it is fair that A&S were killed while Peter got off free? No. Do I think Yahweh is limited to only doing things I like or agree with? No.

One other point: someone looking for inconsistencies would point out that two liars were treated differently, while someone looking for consistency would point out that Peter was forgiven for lying to a chick, and A&S were killed for lying to God.

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

SteveMT's picture

Thanks for saying that this was unfair.

I appreciated reading your fair reply. I wanted to point out two things.

First, Jesus did not categorically condemn all sinners. Prior to His death, He was functioning as if His sacrifice had already been made. He forgave the prostitute, without her having to say a word about repentance (see below).

John 8:1-11
8 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
The second point is that you said this:

"You seem to think that being forgiven means that one is never judged in any way, as if the blood of Jesus means there are no standards or consequences in life."

That is why Jesus died, so that we would not be judged by the old laws. Every ones sins would be covered by His sacrifice. We have been spared true judgement (see below). We are all sinners, right? And, we all fall short of the glory of God. Of course all of us should have high standards of conduct, but we are also not working our way to heaven. I believe that "the vilest offender who truly believes, that moment from Jesus a pardon receives." And if he fails again, he will be forgiven again, 70 times seven. Believe it. You seem to be making this way too hard. Jesus said: "Love God and Love you neighbor." That seems to cover everything. Peace.

Romans 5
9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10 For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11 Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

Another point that can be made:

Peter denied Jesus under great emotional pressure, and potentially under the threat of death, as he had already cut off the High Priest's servant's ear. The moment he heard the rooster crow, and saw Jesus look at him, he repented, weeping bitterly for his sin. Peter's sin was also a 'private' sin, in that most of the other disciples had already departed, and there were a few who knew what he had done.

A & S, OTOH, had no threat over their heads, blatantly lied for no valid reason, and were simply trying to look good in front of all. The property was theirs to give, either partially or the whole. They could have taken the honest route and admitted it before making the offering, but they chose to lie to God, and to His whole congregation. Even when questioned, (which was intended to draw out a confession out right) they 'stuck to their story',revealing their hardened hearts.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

SteveMT's picture

Consider this Libera. Peter did lie directly to God.

Peter lies directly to Jesus pre-crucifixion and was forgiven (see below). Peter was under no pressure to lie at that time either, but he did. Peter wasn't stuck down. A&S lied post-crucifixion, and they were stuck down. Would Jesus have also killed A&S, or would He have instead said: Now go and sin no more.

The last point that sickens me about Acts 5 is that Peter apparently kept the money given by A&S. He took the money after killing them as any robber would have.
Matthew 26:33-35
Peter declared, "Even if everyone else deserts you, I will never desert you."
Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, Peter--this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny three times that you even know me."
"No!" Peter insisted. "Even if I have to die with you, I will never deny you!" And all the other disciples vowed the same.

Granted, but Ananias was not

Granted, but Ananias was not asked at all during the course of the narative recorded, and Sapphira was only asked once. Peter was asked thrice; he stuck to his story three times.

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

SteveMT's picture

Thanks for adding that comment.

I don't know the answer, why one wasn't even given an opportunity to repent. I'm searching for the truth, and I take no solace in challenging people about their religious beliefs. It's very important to question, IMO. We're both the better for it.


Rico, I'm disappointed you espouse love as all-important and yet make your subject "Biblical errancy" and then post three very subpar verses that hardly make any such case. Let's stick to talking about love, OK?

1. Thanks for accepting this resolved. Not looking for the previous answer in the TLDR, our answer is that there is no need to infer a third class of people in Daniel 12 as such is not implied by the writer as interpreted in the language and culture he wrote for. Saying that he was told that (the) multitudes will arise to two destinies in no way requires the novel interpretation that others will not rise.

2. Did you know that the meaning of "giving up his spirit" can well be simply to say, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit"? Again a Greek-style inference is drawn about "final words" that is not implicit in any Hebrew-minded text.

3. Exodus 6 has troubled many, but is not an unambiguous text. Another reading is "By my name Yahweh did I not make myself known?" With both books attributed to Moses for thousands of years, their readers have long understood that if two statements appear contradictory, the contradiction is probably in the translation, not in the author's intent. It is special pleading to accept only a translation that appears to blatantly contradict another when it is not the only translation.

4. Lev. 11:20-23 thrown in for free from your TLDR article. You rightly object to the translation "flying insects that walk on all fours." Naturally the Hebrew word does not mean Linnaean insect and most translations do not say "insect": it means "creeping thing", which is a much broader Hebrew category that includes bats, reptiles, etc. As for the rest of the linked article, I'm sorry to say we couldn't sift through the aliens and animals to get the point about love and peace.

If you truly believe the Bible errant, then cite some obvious historical inaccuracies such as everyone acknowledges appear in the Apocrypha, the Book of Mormon, or the Book of the Dead. Otherwise let's work on "love covers over a multitude of sins".

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Challenge for you.

Can you cite an "obvious historical inaccuracy" (just ONE will suffice) in The Book of Mormon, which "is the most correct of any book in earth", as its translator stated?

I could show many errors in the Bible, but blame it on the translation, however, no such errors are in The Book of Mormon that I'm aware of. At least no doctrinal or historical problems, as you allege.

For even if there are translation errors in the Bible, that does not take away from its value and mission as a testimony of Christ. As for The Book of Mormon, "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

SteveMT's picture

The Book of Mormon cites steel, iron, & silk before their time.

The Book of Mormon references steel, iron, & silk before they were developed in the Americas. There are some other apparent inaccuracies as well discussed here.

Each alleged anachronism has been refuted.

Each alleged anachronism has been refuted by archaeology, including your referenced "inaccuracies". What does this mean? It actually helps prove Joseph Smith Jr. was a true prophet because how could he have known that ancient inhabitants used steel, iron, etc.?

So archaeology helps to validate the authenticity of the translation.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

Sorry underdog

Um, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon#Historical_authe... (and subarticles).

I appreciate (and upvoted) your challenge, though it's essentially off-topic. But rather than answer it by selecting only one item from this link, it would be easier for me to just strike the Moronic book from my own list (Moronic meaning delivered by Moroni). I'm sorry that I forgot that some LDS (not all) still actually believe the book inerrant, unlike Catholics who have backhandedly admitted that the Apocrypha do not meet the same inerrancy standard as the Bible.

The part of the issue that remains on-topic is whether defenses of BoM inerrancy and defenses of OT-NT inerrancy are comparable. They are not, as the linked articles show. Certainly the issue of birth "at Jerusalem" is, as shown here, a minor quibble completely comparable to the OP quibbles.

The claimed inerrant texts are quantitatively different in significant other ways. a. Ordinary historical translation of extant texts from museums (Bible) vs. translation of alleged, nonextant metal plates in an alleged unknown language attested only by questionable witnesses and translated via the use of seer stones in a dark enclosure (Mormon). b. Collection of extant texts with unique interaction, mutual authentication, and subject agreement (Bible) vs. running translation of one set of texts all allegedly compiled in the same plates all on the alleged collection's own authority (Mormon). c. Admitted uniqueness and novelty of subject matter (Bible) vs. great subject similarity to an admitted fiction work by Solomon Spalding, who was known before he died to have left a second unpublished fiction manuscript at the printer where Joseph Smith's friend Sydney Rigdon worked (Mormon).

These three points do not prove inerrancy, because despite it all the BoM could still be supernaturally "inspired"; but they indicate an excellent alternate scenario that avoids supernaturalism entirely. Therefore the Mormon apologist has a much higher bar to overcome: extreme claims require extraordinary proof, and the claim that the BoM is an accurate record of historical experience is required by its own circumstances to meet a much higher standard than that the Bible accurately records what its authors experienced.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Are you recanting your statement then?

Thanks for the upvote.

Admittedly, this discussion is off topic from the main post.

To review, you made the original unfounded (false) statement that The Book of Mormon was "obviously historically inaccurate." Then you responded to my challenge which you apparently appreciated.

Are you asserting your wiki citation helped your cause? There was nothing mentioned there that disproved The Book of Mormon (BOM). Which proves my point, not even the omniscient Wikipedia can offer any "ammunition" for critics of the BOM to "disprove" the BOM. This should speak volumes - in SUPPORT of Joseph Smith's testimony of its origin. I've heard, I think, all the attacks/ criticisms through the years, and NONE of them address doctrinal points and most are disingenuous and silly, and a very few appear to originate from (perhaps) well-intentioned people who are just ignorant of literature, history, or archaeology. Because literature, history, and archaeology back up and certify (as best it can) the authenticity of the text. Of course, the best way to know 100% sure if it's true or not is to read it and ask God if it's true, having faith in Christ, and the promise is that God will reveal the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost. This may be off topic a bit too, but THAT'S how one can really know.

Your post says, "These three points do not prove inerrancy, because despite it all the BoM could still be supernaturally "inspired"; but they indicate an excellent alternate scenario that avoids supernaturalism entirely."

Of course, people can always believe what they want to believe: that Jesus was not the literal Son of God, that there's no criminal conspiracy seeking to destroy liberty worldwise, that the BOM wasn't translated by the power of God by a true prophet, etc.

The BOM's invitation, the Lord's invitation is to believe in Christ, to trust Him. Mormon says it well here:
8 And these things have I written, which are a lesser part of the things which he taught the people; and I have written them to the intent that they may be brought again unto this people, from the Gentiles, according to the words which Jesus hath spoken.
9 And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them.
10 And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation.

And another prophet says it well here:
10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.
11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

Mormon errors

What about Jesus being born in Jerusalem?


Joseph obviously knew the city of the Savior's birth, but chose to translate the text AS IT WAS WRITTEN, which is:

And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

Please note Joseph translated it as "the land of our forefathers". This was a common description then AS IT IS NOW.

Where were you born? "In Chicago," one might reply, though the person was born in a suburb one hour away from Chicago.

This explanation I offer and the other poster below offers is no "stretch" at all. However, it is completely ridiculous to try to say the Book of Mormon is a fraud and to cite this as evidence of the fraud. Obviously, Joseph Smith and everybody else knew /knows the city where Jesus was born.

And thus this becomes yet another 'proof' that the translation is authentic. If Joseph were wanting to avoid even the appearance of a fraud, he'd stick to naming the very city, vs. the land, so as not to give any silly critics the pleasure of pointing out their weak attempt at an "historical inaccuracy."

The cool thing about The Book of Mormon is that it has stood up to over 180 years of intense scrutiny and it still stands as an unrepudiated, true testimony of Christ and that He calls prophets today.

I'm still waiting for the poster above to substantiate his claim that The Book of Mormon has error, not just some alleged historical error, but ANY doctrinal error, OR any inconsistency with the Bible. There's 531 pages to choose from. Supposedly written by an uneducated farm boy. Surely there's a person learned enough who hates Mormons with a passion that would love to gloat as they revealed to the world the fraud Joseph Smith, the Prophet, perpetuated and which "deceives" the believers.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

Easy to find out what they say about that

Google turns this up (second item on the page):

Towns and villages which surrounded larger demographic or political centers were regarded in ancient times as belonging to those larger centers. For a major city center such as Jerusalem to be called not only a city but also a land was standard practice. El Amarna letter #287, an ancient Near Eastern text, mentions the “land of Jerusalem” several times. 1 And—like Alma—the ancient writer of El Amarna letter #290 even refers to Bethlehem as part of the land of Jerusalem ...


At Jerusalem. Alma stated that Jesus would be born of Mary not in Jerusalem, but at Jerusalem. Dictionary definitions of at include the words close by and near. Certainly “at Jerusalem” could be interpreted “near Jerusalem.”


Joseph Smith, of course, knew well that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. If he had been the author of the Book of Mormon he would have so stated the fact, since any deviation from the well-known setting would certainly draw objection and accusation. However, Joseph Smith was merely translating a geographical note from an ancient writer—a note which in itself is another evidence that the Book of Mormon derives from a Semitic background.

To me that sounds like the same kind of "explaining away" that is used for apparent discrepancies in the Bible. So fair's fair. If you're evaluating texts that are allegedly inerrant, pick a standard and apply it to all the texts that are claimed to be inerrant, don't interpret one with a loose standard but hold the others to a strict standard. The problem is that by a sufficiently loose standard, "inerrancy" loses any real significance.

How dare you question

How dare you question Biblical accuracy! Down votes ahoy haha

SteveMT's picture

tfichter: Your expertise is again needed

I used this Biblical quote during my discussions with "b."

Mark 16:15
And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

"b" told me the following:

Regarding Mark 16:15, there are a few problems with your view. First the authenticity of verses 9-20 are in question by most Bible scholars(including conservative ones). It's normal that churches give disclaimers if they ever preach through Mark and get to this section, some churches won't even cover that section because it is generally rejected as authentic because of manuscript evidence.

Do you concur with b about these verses is the question and my response?

Thanks for your opinion.

SteveMT: Let us look at the passage

You quote Mark 16:15, which supposedly describes the words spoken by Christ just prior to His ascension. What "b" says regarding the text is true. Some Biblical scholars have called the last half of Mark 16 into question because it is completely left out of certain manuscripts. When the KJV was written, these other manuscripts had not yet been discovered. The more recently discovered manuscripts are older than the ones used by the translators of the KJV, so it raises a dilemna. Do we trust the accuracy of a majority of manuscripts which include this portion, or do we trust the older manuscripts? Most Bible printers include the section with a footnote.

However, just because it may or may not have been in the original does not necessarily make it not true. Is there another passage not under the same scrutiny that would validate the truth of Mark 16:15? Why, yes, there is! Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. (Matthew 28:18-20 comes even closer to the words found in Mark 16:15)

The first half of Acts 1 and the second half of Mark 16 describe the same event - the Ascension of Christ. They agree as to the events that took place. So, I have no problem quoting Mark 16:15, regardless of whether or not it appears in all the manuscripts, because I am not saying anything that is contrary to Scripture.

I would however caution you about picking and choosing which portions of the Bible are inspired and true, and which are not. Yes, men did have to make a choice about the canon of Scripture, but remember, they made that choice about complete books or letters, not particular passages within a book. If you choose to reject a particular passage, then you must reject the whole book. If you accept the Gospels as true, then you must accept the complete Old Testament as true, and inspired, because Jesus in the Gospels validated the inspiration of the OT. Same goes for the letters of Peter and Paul validating the OT. Jesus and Peter validate the words of the apostles as inspired Scripture. When it is all said and done, either you accept the complete Bible as the inspired, inerrant Word of God, or you reject it completely. There really is no middle ground. Jehovah God, as revealed in ALL of Scripture is the One True Triune God. We cannot create a God of our own liking in our heads. That is idolatry.

Amen, Amen and Amen!

"When it is all said and done, either you accept the complete Bible as the inspired, inerrant Word of God, or you reject it completely. There really is no middle ground. Jehovah God, as revealed in ALL of Scripture is the One True Triune God. We cannot create a God of our own liking in our heads. That is idolatry."


" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

SteveMT's picture

There is a middle ground about the Bible.

There are a priori givens about the Almighty that everyone who believes in God knows to be absolutely true.

God is good.
God is merciful.
God is consistent.
God is logical.
God is truth.

One need not read any book to know these things about God. These are givens, absolutes, not for just some of the time, but all of the time. Can we agree on this much? It would make no sense to worship someone who was not all of these givens; that would be the equivalent to worshiping the devil. The devil is sometimes good, but mostly bad. If God is mostly good and sometimes bad, then there isn't much difference between God and the devil is there?

I am not immediately dismissing any holy book, but I approach embracing holy books with a great deal of skepticism. If the book is perfectly adhering to these givens listed above, then there is a possibility that it could be from God. If it is not perfect according to these standards, then it is not, but with the following caveat. There could be a "Word of God" in there somewhere that might have had its origins from God, but got corrupted along the way by men attempting to use the name of God for their own worldly purposes, i.e. mass murder and debauchery.

Biblical scholarship

has practically dismissed these passages and others in all modern English versions of the bible since 1880. ALL modern translation use Greek manuscripts based on codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. They are different then what the KJV is translated from. That is why there are so many differences between the modern versions and the KJV.

Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are fourth century documents. They are considered the oldest complete manuscripts in existence. They are hailed as the best and most accurate. It is these two manuscripts that are referenced when you hear bible scholars say the best and most accurate manuscripts don't have such and such.

Google them. Here are afew to get you started.



This one covers your original question: http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/articles/king...

Hope this helped

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

SteveMT's picture

Appreciate the feedback on this, Agent86.

I'm sort of shocked. I've heard this passage preached many times. The red letter version of the Bible still has this in Red as if Jesus actually said it. People have no doubt gone to the far ends of the earth using this verse as their inspiration and some no doubt have been killed by hostiles because of this passage. I'm actually feeling pretty sad about hearing this information. Thanks for letting me know though.