I think it's rather amusing that some conservatives believe it's necessary to rewrite the Bible to suit their political beliefs. Wouldn't it suit them better to correct some of the errors in existing translations such as the Abiathar/Ahimelech mistake in Mark 2, the scribal addition of the story of the woman taken in adultery in John 8, and the disparity between Mark and John as to what day Jesus was crucified on among many others.
I haven't read their version so I really can't comment on it's substance. For all I know it is just a marketing strategy used to counteract the genderless Bible that was just made.
But I really don't see any substance on your part to quote the so called "errors" that you mined from the Internet from faithless sites.
Those areas have been explained satisfactorily countless times and one can find those answers in the faithfull sites also on the inertnet.
And what makes you think I "mined" these errors from some faithless web site? You're wrong. I "mined" them from decades of study long before there was an Internet. I don't need the Internet to find errors in such a flawed book. Only those who cling to the fantasy that the Christian Bible is the inerrant Word of God still refuse to admit the obvious.
Apparently you "studied" or "mined" them with a decision already made. Vision becomes skewed when that happens.
Wrong. When I started studying, I was a Christian. Actually reading the Bible objectively drove me away from it.
I don't know about the "conservapedia" - I haven't read it
But as far a Abiathar/Ahimelech... try studying more... the internet is now available.
(i) In ( 1 Samuel 21:1 ) he is called Ahimelech and his son is called Abiathar, but by conferring other places it is plain that both of them had two names; see ( 1 Chronicles 24:6 ; 2 Samuel 8:17 ; 2 Samuel 15:29 ; 1 Kings 2:26 ; 2 Kings 25:18 ).
Okay, so you proved that the OT authors couldn't get their stories straight either. Am I supposed to be impressed?
You just proved my point. You approach it with unbelief therefore no explanation is enough. You remind me of the quote of Billy Graham "To my friends no explanation is necessary and to my enemies no explanation will ever be enough". Not that you are my enemy nor are you my friend but definitely no explanation will ever be enough.
Jacob is also Israel. Abram is also Abraham. Gideon is also Jerubbaal. A very common practice of the time.
My name is Kenneth Wayne... my son is also - sometimes my son is Wayne and sometime Kenneth.
It is a matter of approach and the condition of the heart.
One thing for sure... if you DID study before... this one was so easy to answer it is quite obvious that either you weren't truthful or you did a lousy job of studying.
First of all (Mr kwd) I never claimed the story of the woman taken in adultery was an error.
Never said you did. I was talking about the names.
I said it was an addition made by a scribe at a later date and was not originally a part of John. I'll pass on wiki as a dependable source.
You obviously didn't read what I said. I told you, in other words, that wiki isn't always a dependable source... but that the did a good job on this one.
And look who's accusing who of rationalizing. You're claiming the Bible is God's Word, yet give no proof that the statement is true. Just because you say it's so doesn't make it so. Show the evidence.
Condition of your heart. Why should I talk to you about something when you don't even read what I offered?
Just because I love wasting time, here's another couple of points for you to think about.
Yes... I am coming close to quit wasting my time with you.
Explain why Mark and John disagree on what day Jesus was crucified. I can't wait to see the apologist answer to this
Quit making me do all the work.... just what did you mine about the two?
. Oh, and since we're at one end of his life, let's go to the other end. When was Jesus born? was it before 4 BCE or in 6 CE? According to Matthew it was before the death of Herod. According to Luke it was when Quirinius was governor of Syria after Augustus had Archelaus deposed as Herod's successor. Only one of the two can be right.
http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con100.aspRead it and learn.
As soon as you "investigate" the death discrepancies and I answer it, I will supply the information.... but after that Mr. T. Pain, I think I will have wasted enough time with you.
You have demonstrated that your problem is a heart problem which causes your approach to be that of faithlessness. No answer will even be enough for you. You may feel free to reject Jesus Christ - it is your free will decision. You have opened your mouth, stuck your foot in it and shown that you haven't even begun to study.
May I suggest you get out of your diapers and put on some pants instead? After studying, that is.
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM