I am not complaining but asking questions. Was the Septuagint the "holy scriptures" that Timothy had as a child? (2 Timothy 2:15)
Does the Bible claim to be inerrant?
- Thread starter Antony_me
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I am not complaining but asking questions. Was the Septuagint the "holy scriptures" that Timothy had as a child? (2 Timothy 2:15)
LOL Too funny, especially from a KJVOnlyist. How do you deal with the rabbits are unclean section of the law? Because rabbits are not cloven, like the passage says. Truth is the KJV translators goofed there and you're still talking about trusting them.
Do you even know the difference between a rabbit and a hare?
The original manuscripts, which are not available, were indeed inerrant. All existing translations and original language manuscripts have some minor errors in transcription, translation or both. NONE of the errors are of such a nature as to compromise God's intended message. The Bible, as we have it, with all its errors; is still TOTALLY RELIABLE to guide us in ALL matters of faith and practice.
X-rays of 1,700-Year-Old Burned Scroll Are Identical to Modern Bible
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/53yfno/science_ama_series_we_are_brent_michael_and_seth/
It contained portions of chapters 1 and 2 of the biblical book of Leviticus.
Michael Segal, professor of biblical studies at Hebrew University who worked
on the project, described what was written on the scroll:
The text of the two chapters of Leviticus that have been uncovered so far is letter-to-letter
identical to the Masoretic text that we know from medieval manuscripts. Similarly, in these
two chapters, the section/paragraph divisions are in identical locations to the medieval
[Masoretic Text].
Radiocarbon results dated the scroll to around a.d. 300, but Dr. Ada Yardeni, after
analyzing the handwriting of the text, dated it earlier, to around the first century a.d.
The importance of the discovery lies in the fact that the scroll is identical to the Masoretic
Text. Dead Sea Scroll scholar Emanuel Tov, who participated in the project, said, “This is
quite amazing for us. In 2,000 years, this text has not changed.”
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/53yfno/science_ama_series_we_are_brent_michael_and_seth/
It contained portions of chapters 1 and 2 of the biblical book of Leviticus.
Michael Segal, professor of biblical studies at Hebrew University who worked
on the project, described what was written on the scroll:
The text of the two chapters of Leviticus that have been uncovered so far is letter-to-letter
identical to the Masoretic text that we know from medieval manuscripts. Similarly, in these
two chapters, the section/paragraph divisions are in identical locations to the medieval
[Masoretic Text].
Radiocarbon results dated the scroll to around a.d. 300, but Dr. Ada Yardeni, after
analyzing the handwriting of the text, dated it earlier, to around the first century a.d.
The importance of the discovery lies in the fact that the scroll is identical to the Masoretic
Text. Dead Sea Scroll scholar Emanuel Tov, who participated in the project, said, “This is
quite amazing for us. In 2,000 years, this text has not changed.”
Did you hear what you have said? The Bible is totally reliable in all matters of faith and practice even though it has errors. Personally, I don't want something guiding my life that contains errors. Good luck with that.
Do we really need this lame excuse of an argument? Paul did not have the KJV. Peter did not have the KJV. And on and on it goes, as if anyone really believes or promotes such nonsense. But you can rest assured that if Paul had the Authorized Version and was in England speaking English, he would have absolutely no objection to calling it the Word of God, or using it as the authoritative Bible. You say Christ is inerrant, yet you reject His inerrant statement that the written Word of God is also inerrant. Do you see that you are on the horns of a dilemma?
Your real problem is that you simply do not believe that the Bible is the Word of God. So how can you possibly believe anything that is revealed in it? You might as well join the theological liberals and tell people that the Bible is simply a book written by men and full of errors, legends, myths, fables, and fantasies.
I do not know what Timothy had. We do not have any Scriptures quotations made by him.
Septuagint is the most probable possibility, though.
I asked you for a definition of "the Word of God" and you said it equals Bible.
I have many Bibles and I believe that my Bibles are Bibles, so what do you have a problem with? Define it properly or do not complain.
Last edited:
You seem to be referring to a god who cannot preserve all he wishes to convey up until the day of his return.
The faith of Abraham in Jesus Christ tells my heart, soul andmind, that all truth needed for salvation is preserved in just abhout all translations of the Word. I do not think a word here and there in error can take away fromt eh Gospel of Jesus Christ unless it is changed by designe.
Always remember and never overlook, it is the Holy Spirit Who gives live to the written word, otherwise it kills, and I have witness the latter time and time again. TÇrust your Maker...amen
The faith of Abraham in Jesus Christ tells my heart, soul andmind, that all truth needed for salvation is preserved in just abhout all translations of the Word. I do not think a word here and there in error can take away fromt eh Gospel of Jesus Christ unless it is changed by designe.
Always remember and never overlook, it is the Holy Spirit Who gives live to the written word, otherwise it kills, and I have witness the latter time and time again. TÇrust your Maker...amen
Errors in the KJV are always OK, because they are inspired erros with a deep meaning...
One error the KJV contained for a time was that Moses had horns and not rays emitting from his head when he came down the mounta
in after 40 days with God. Even the Vatican forwarded this e
rror with the statue of Moses by MAngeloo I believe this was sculpted in the early 17th centurey.......it could have been the early 16th...you tell me.
in after 40 days with God. Even the Vatican forwarded this e
"Michelangelo’s Moses in the Church of San Pietro in Vincoli, Rome
What about the horns? Scholars believe this was a mistranslation of Hebrew scriptures into Latin by St. Jerome, called the Vulgate. It was the Latin translation of the Bible used at that time. Moses is described as having “rays of the skin of his face.” Jerome translated it to horns from the word keren, which means either radiated or grew horns.
Horns were a symbol of wisdom and rulership in ancient times. Was Moses a descendent of antediluvian kings, those who reigned before the flood, as some interpreted it?
Michelangelo was not the only artist to put horns on Moses. Several paintings and sculptures from the medieval and renaissance era depict him this way and can still be seen on the streets and in museums."
https://timelessitalytravels.com/2014/04/07/why-did-michelangelo-put-horns-on-moses/
What about the horns? Scholars believe this was a mistranslation of Hebrew scriptures into Latin by St. Jerome, called the Vulgate. It was the Latin translation of the Bible used at that time. Moses is described as having “rays of the skin of his face.” Jerome translated it to horns from the word keren, which means either radiated or grew horns.
Horns were a symbol of wisdom and rulership in ancient times. Was Moses a descendent of antediluvian kings, those who reigned before the flood, as some interpreted it?
Michelangelo was not the only artist to put horns on Moses. Several paintings and sculptures from the medieval and renaissance era depict him this way and can still be seen on the streets and in museums."
https://timelessitalytravels.com/2014/04/07/why-did-michelangelo-put-horns-on-moses/
In Hebrew the word karren can mean either radiance or horns. When Moses came down from Sinai, his face glowed so brightly that he had ti veil his face. That glow or radiance was the Hebrew word karren. Sometime later someone carelessly substituted horns [another legitimate meaning of karren] for radiance.
But they do promote such nonsense. This cult following is inspiring quite an array of false teaching. I've witnessed four different posters in the past two weeks denying the sovereignty of Christ and becoming angry at modern translations because it isn't possible to back up their theories from those. The conclusion being "all other translations must be corrupt". They prefer a to use language they demonstratively don't understand because they can interpret it any way they want. You may not be noticing this is happening because you by your prejudice back up anyone who is a KJVO believer.