How would you know that, droid, if you do not have the "originals?"
The bible corrector is scrambling to his stack of humanism books, pamphlets.....anything but the bible's testimony.
Scripture. What is considered Scripture?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
How would you know that, droid, if you do not have the "originals?"
The bible corrector is scrambling to his stack of humanism books, pamphlets.....anything but the bible's testimony.
There are so many things wrong in your post that it is difficult to choose a place to start.
Let’s just start with the part I highlighted.
What chapter and verse says the Bible in its entirety is the Word of God?
Does not work like that, droid. I stay on topic:
1.Identify this "scripture." Where can I get a copy?Where can I get a copy of this mystical, alleged "Word of God" of yours.
2.Study a scripture, that says scripture is in error? Got it, droid.
3. Define bible believer.
How would you know droid, if you do not have the "originals," that "those words were written"(scripture-my clarification) there was.."no Bible as we have it now."(your argument). How do you know that "the Bible in its entirety" is not exactly as "the originals?" Chapter, verse, that asserts that the scriptures have errors.
Identify this "scripture." Where can I get a copy? Where can we get our hands on it? Walmart? Where can we get a copy of this "scripture of truth," that we can, with conviction, w/o reservation, press to our hearts, and boldly proclaim: "This is the true, preserved, right, sound, pure Word of God, the scriptures(meaning "written,"). I believe every word of it."?
Define.....
"bible believer."
Then perhaps you can answer the two questions on Matthew’s genealogy:
1) Was Joseph a descendant of David’s Son Nathan or David’s son Solomon?
2) Matthew said there were 14 generations from David to the deportation. 1 Chronicles listed 18. Which one is wrong?
This may help:
Matthew wrote that there were 14 generations from David to the deportation. He listed the generations. He skips three generations, putting Uzziah in the place of Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Azariah.
So either Matthew has an error in counting the generations or 1 Chronicles 3 has an error in listing the generations.
Matthew 1 And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, 7 and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asaph, and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah, 9and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah...So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations.
1 Chronicles 3 The descendants of Solomon: Rehoboam, Abijah his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son, 11 Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, 12 Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son, 13 Ahaz his son, Hezekiah his son,
1 Chronicles 3.....Matthew
Solomon............ Solomom
Rehoboam...........Rehoboam
Abijah.............Abijah
Asa................Asaph
Jehoshaphat........Jehoshaphat
Joram..............Joram
Ahaziah............missing from Matthew
Joash..............missing from Matthew
Missing from 1 Chronicles......Uzziah
Amaziah............missing from Matthew
Azariah............missing from Matthew
Jotham.............Jotham
Ahaz...............Ahaz
Hezekiah...........Hezekiah
Minor differences in the names aren’t errors. Claiming there were 14 generations when there were 17 generations is an error. Actually, Matthew also skips Jehoiakim, so his miscount is off by 4. But I don’t want to pile on right now.
This is another error which disproves the man-made doctrine of inerrancy. It is an insignificant and minor error from the perspective of the validity and credibility of scriptures. It is another proof that the doctrine of inerrancy is false.
God never promised to perfectly preserved a set of writings. If you think He did, could you provide scriptural support for that claim?
Which canon do you use? Are you aware of when that canon was first used?
No, son, the alleged errors of you bible correctors have been refuted for years, by others more capable of me, so you won't get me falling for your devilish snake oil...
Define bible believer, bible corrector.
So you cannot quote chapter and verse that says the Bible in its entirety is the Word of God.
I was sure if that.
So your claim that you provided chapter and verse stating that was false.
Duly noted.
genuineoriginal
New member
Don't some Protestants believe that the angels left a copy of the KJV Bible in the manger with baby Jesus?
I note that you will not even try to explain the errors.
As for “son,” I am likely your elder. I have probably been serving the Lord many more years than you. Have you been a Christian more than 55 years?
Observe, the deception...Did our heroine defend his "argument?" Nope.
And the moron does not have a clue, that the bible, and its "cannon," were written, compiled over thousands of years, so his "argument" is non sensical. Regardless, he cannot "prove" that "those words were written there was no canon and no Bible as we have it now," unless he has these "originals."How would you know that, droid, if you do not have the "originals?"
And how would he know that he had these "originals?"
Duh.
You can't be this stupid-that is what happens, when you morph, "evolve"(devolve) into a bible corrector, instead of a bible believer.
The bible corrector is scrambling to his stack of humanism books, pamphlets.....anything but the bible's testimony.
If the KJV was good enough for Abraham, it should be good enough for us.
Few Protestants realize the 1611 KJV had more than 66 books and included the Maccabees and others.
The word is “canon,” not cannon.
You don’t know how the canon was set, do you?
Perhaps calling me a moron is inappropriate.
Have you been a believer more than 55 years?
Define bible believer, bible corrector.
Not a peep.
How do you know that this alleged "the Lord" you cite, is not one of those "insignificant errors?" And your "I have probably been serving the Lord many more years than you. Have you been a Christian more than 55 years" is quite irrelevant.
And you're not a Christian, droid, as no member of the boc would correct the LORD God, and his book. Correcting any alleged scriptures, word of God, presupposes an authority over it-you are your own final authority. The bible is to correct you, not vice verse, and if one does not understand a verse, thinking it is in error, it is that person that is in error, not the scriptures, and that person needs to go back, and study the book, survey it, until he "gets it." That is what a bible believer(my emphasis) does.
You define bible believer, bible corrector.
More correction, eh, bible corrector? Quite irrelevant to your "argument."
OK-Ravenous wolf, child of the devil, bible corrector.
Define "bible believer," bible corrector.
Observe, the deception...Again-Did our heroine defend his "argument?" Nope.
And the moron does not have a clue, that the bible, and its "canon," were written, compiled over thousands of years, so his "argument" is non sensical. Regardless, he cannot "prove" that "those words were written there was no canon and no Bible as we have it now," unless he has these "originals."How would you know that, droid, if you do not have the "originals?"
And how would he know that he had these "originals?"
Duh.
You can't be this stupid-that is what happens, when you morph, "evolve"(devolve) into a bible corrector, instead of a bible believer.
Quite irrelevant side step, move the goal posts, create a moving target....That is slick...Slick as the serpent in Genesis, and who confronted the Saviour in the wilderness, challenging the scriptures, like you....
Chapter, verse, that asserts that a translation cannot be scripture. Prove what language(s) the "originals" were written.
Does not work like that, droid. I stay on topic:
1.Identify this "scripture." Where can I get a copy?Where can I get a copy of this mystical, alleged "Word of God" of yours.
2.Study a scripture, that says scripture is in error? Got it, droid.
3. Define bible believer.
How would you know droid, if you do not have the "originals," that "those words were written"(scripture-my clarification) there was.."no Bible as we have it now."(your argument). How do you know that "the Bible in its entirety" is not exactly as "the originals?" Chapter, verse, that asserts that the scriptures have errors.
Identify this "scripture." Where can I get a copy? Where can we get our hands on it? Walmart? Where can we get a copy of this "scripture of truth," that we can, with conviction, w/o reservation, press to our hearts, and boldly proclaim: "This is the true, preserved, right, sound, pure Word of God, the scriptures(meaning "written,"). I believe every word of it."?
Define.....
"bible believer."
Not a peep. Duly noted.
So there:
You: Here is the scripture, that is in error, that says we no longer have the scriptures.
Thanks for checkin' in, Lamont.
My question stands, to your "argument"-How would you know that, droid, if you do not have the "originals?"
The bible corrector is scrambling to his stack of humanism books, pamphlets.....anything but the bible's testimony.