Comment: Actually...

(See in situ)


Actually...

Not really. As I've noted before, the Bible uses a lot of poetic language, and for all we know, Satan took Jesus to the top of the mountain and showed him a vision - it might not have involved a literal mountain at all, in fact. It could very well have simply been a vision. Oftentimes, too, "world" is used in the sense of the Roman world in ancient literature, and this would certainly make sense in this context.

Regarding Ecclesiastes, we still say sunrise and sunset. That's hardly a literal statement.

I think I pointed this out before regarding the four legs - any person could see that a bug doesn't have four legs, and I'm hard pressed to think of any reason they'd say it had four and mean that literally. It just seems to me that it's more rational to assume it's a way of saying "on all its legs."

I think what this dispute boils down to is that you and I have different definitions of inerrant, which is understandable. My understanding has always been that inerrancy means no false teaching, whereas yours appears to be that it means no mess-ups/technical discrepancies that have occurred through copying.

In my humble opinion, to think that it would be POSSIBLE to keep all the technicalities perfectly copied, or to bring the Bible back to inerrancy, is to give humans far too much credit. All things considered, the Bible is easily our best-preserved and best-documented ancient text in existence, and is astoundingly consistent even WITH the translation errors. The Word of the Lord is perfect; the copying methods of people are decidedly not.