The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: ...

(See in situ)


Disclosure? This is common knowledge that there is a textual variant here. You must have very little Bible knowledge. The fact that it is less reliable doesn't mean that the information there is wrong or right, it only means that it's not considered to be reliable as inspired by God. People can write true things without them being inspired. Anybody that's serious about studying the Bible would know of this variant. It's in practically every commentary, practically every study bible, probably most bibles with footnotes would at least have a brief mention of it. there are a lot of churches that don't take the bible seriously, but any church that does would mention the textual variant. It is not as if bibles that contain those verses say that it is inspired, on the contrary they explicitly specify that it is in question, you only have to look at the footnotes in the margin or at the bottom of the page. Also the presence or absence of that passage has no real effect on doctrine or Christianity. there is one other variant as significant as this one, but those are the only two large variants, the rest are much less significant. Whether you want to include them or not as scripture has no bearing on my argument. I gave you 3 reasons and that was only one reason your argument was weak.

You seem to assume that it is considered scripture just because it's under the same cover and on the same paper as the inspired word? Did you know that the verse and chapter system didn't exist in the originals either? But they're on the same paper in the same binding and every church uses them and every pastor preaches with them, so you must think that Christians ought to consider them inspired? That's just silliness. The fact that the Russian bible arranges the psalms with a slightly different numbering system has nothing to do with biblical inerrancy, you're just arguing against the bible from ignorance.. that's not meant to be condescending, it's just a fact that you were ignorant of textual variants, and yet you think you know enough about the bible to reject parts of it. Again, I don't think I'm better or necessarily smarter than you, but I think you know very little about the bible. please watch this video It might answer some of your questions about God's use of words too. I'm sure you can come up with plenty of new objections to the Bible by learning more about it, but maybe you will give up the weaker ones.