Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Another riddle for inerrantists

  1. #1
    Irrelevant Pissant

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    03-13-14 @ 06:55 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,194

    Another riddle for inerrantists

    Are these verses the Word of God? *If so, why aren't they in the NIV Bible? *If not, why are they in the King James Bible?

    Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14.
    Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28.
    Luke 17:36; 23:17;*
    John 5:4.
    Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29.
    Romans 16:24.

  2. #2
    Irrelevant Pissant

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    03-13-14 @ 06:55 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,194

    Re: Another riddle for inerrantists

    Is there no one who will defend the idea that the Bible is without error? Really?

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In your dreams...
    Last Seen
    05-29-12 @ 01:53 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,621

    Re: Another riddle for inerrantists

    What are those numbers?

  4. #4
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!
    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    35,689
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Another riddle for inerrantists

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Is there no one who will defend the idea that the Bible is without error? Really?
    The Case of the Missing Verse – John 5:4 Kingdom Living

    What happened to verse 4? The KJV decided to include it because it was in the manuscripts they had at their disposal. The NIV decided to omit it because in the 400 years since the KJV was translated much older manuscripts had surfaced that did not have that verse. Remember, the KJV was translated largely from the Textus Receptus which was a compilation of manuscripts that did not even date prior to 1100 AD. The NIV translation committee had access to manuscripts dating back within 150 years of the original documents of the New Testament.
    And there's no need to worry since everything is mostly nothing;
    or so I'm told by an angel in a white lab coat

  5. #5
    Irrelevant Pissant

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    03-13-14 @ 06:55 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,194

    Re: Another riddle for inerrantists

    Quote Originally Posted by SE102 View Post
    What are those numbers?
    The numbers are chapters and verses of the respective books in the Bible. These particular numbers are verses that cannot be found in the new versions of the Bible, but can be found in the King James version.

  6. #6
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!
    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    35,689
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Another riddle for inerrantists

    List of Bible verses not included in modern translations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    This is a list of Bible verses in the New Testament that are present in the King James Version (KJV) but absent from most modern Bible translations completed after 1881 which are based upon the earliest manuscripts, see also Novum Testamentum Graece.
    And there's no need to worry since everything is mostly nothing;
    or so I'm told by an angel in a white lab coat

  7. #7
    Irrelevant Pissant

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    03-13-14 @ 06:55 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,194

    Re: Another riddle for inerrantists

    Ok, so the popular theory seems to be that the King James Version had a bunch of errors because it was based on the Textus Receptus which also had a bunch of errors, and the NIV has provided a somewhat more faithful interpretation by correcting some of these errors after cross referencing older manuscripts that also must contain errors, since they often disagree with each other.

    So where do people get this idea about an "inerrant" "Inspired" "perfect" Bible from? Surely there must be someone on this forum who suffers under the delusion that everything in the Bible is true.

  8. #8
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 01:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Another riddle for inerrantists

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Are these verses the Word of God? *If so, why aren't they in the NIV Bible? *If not, why are they in the King James Bible?
    If you -really- want an answer, you need to ask the people that put those version of the Bible together.
    I'm guessing that's no one here, and I'm guessing you know that - so all you're doing is trolling.

  9. #9
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 05:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Another riddle for inerrantists

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Are these verses the Word of God? *If so, why aren't they in the NIV Bible? *If not, why are they in the King James Bible?

    Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14.
    Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28.
    Luke 17:36; 23:17;*
    John 5:4.
    Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29.
    Romans 16:24.
    Because the various Bible versions were all written by hand - before the printing press - for different people and to their liking at a time when most common people like you and me couldn't read. . . so it didn't matter.

    I'm curious as to why you're reading and analyzing the Bible - everyone has their own reason when they choose to (religious, anti-religious, purely curious, seeking answers).

    I read it when I was a teen - I had to.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  10. #10
    All Warm and Fuzzy
    FluffyNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Miss-uh-Sippie
    Last Seen
    02-01-19 @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,831

    Re: Another riddle for inerrantists

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Ok, so the popular theory seems to be that the King James Version had a bunch of errors because it was based on the Textus Receptus which also had a bunch of errors, and the NIV has provided a somewhat more faithful interpretation by correcting some of these errors after cross referencing older manuscripts that also must contain errors, since they often disagree with each other.

    So where do people get this idea about an "inerrant" "Inspired" "perfect" Bible from? Surely there must be someone on this forum who suffers under the delusion that everything in the Bible is true.
    Dude! You are such a TROLL! Is this your mission in life or something, to bait someone into arguing over miniscule, and often irrelevent, Biblical translation inconsistencies? Really? Does it just make your day to show us dumb ol' "Jesus Freaks" just how "inconsistent" the "book" we follow is? You really don't understand a great deal about faith, do you? It is sad, really.
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •