Innerancy.

[Cow Poke]

I only object when there are contradictory statements in the Bible with science or God's qualities. For example, God's order the slaying of infant (1 Sam 15:3) and anything that breathes (Deut 20:16-17) is in conflict with God's quality of justice and love.

You would do better to look at your own conflict with the Risen Lord, Hakeem.

[Same Hakeem]

You would do better to look at your own conflict with the Risen Lord, Hakeem.

Thanks Cow. I limit my comments to the forum title "inerrancy"

[Cow Poke]

Thanks Cow. I limit my comments to the forum title "inerrancy"

Perhaps you should do a study of what we actually mean when we say "inerrancy".

[tabibito]

Also, please turn to Leviticus 11:6 "the hare chews the cud"

https://biblehub.com/leviticus/11-6.htm

The hare does in fact chew the cud under the definitions of "chewing the cud" by ancient Hebrew definitions. There are particular elements in the hare's scat that are an essential part of its diet. The hare eats those parts of its excrement.

As Cow Poke noted, the Hebrew word translated as "birds," which includes "bats" does in fact translate more properly as "winged creatures" or "flying creatures" but even then, there would be difficulties - flying creatures would not include flightless birds, flying creatures would include such things as flying fish. Some words and concepts simply won't translate from one language to another - some might translate adequately into a different other language. For example Koine Greek "biazo" can't be translated to English, but it can be translated directly to Japanese - kekkyoku suru. As adjectives, both translate to the nearest English equivalent as "violent" ... which is wholly misleading.

[rogue06]

The hare does in fact chew the cud under the definitions of "chewing the cud" by ancient Hebrew definitions. There are particular elements in the hare's scat that are an essential part of its diet. The hare eats those parts of its excrement.

As Cow Poke noted, the Hebrew word translated as "birds," which includes "bats" does in fact translate more properly as "winged creatures" or "flying creatures" but even then, there would be difficulties - flying creatures would not include flightless birds, flying creatures would include such things as flying fish. Some words and concepts simply won't translate from one language to another - some might translate adequately into a different other language. For example Koine Greek "biazo" can't be translated to English, but it can be translated directly to Japanese - kekkyoku suru. As adjectives, both translate to the nearest English equivalent as "violent" ... which is wholly misleading.

As an aside, do flying fish actually fly or do they "leap"?

[tabibito]

As an aside, do flying fish actually fly or do they "leap"?

Most species of flying fish do little more than leap. There is at least one that can both fly and steer.

[ReformedApologist]

Most species of flying fish do little more than leap. There is at least one that can both fly and steer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk7McNUjWgw

They also have wings.

[tabibito]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk7McNUjWgw

They also have wings.

hyper developed pectoral fins, not wings as such.

[ReformedApologist]

The hare does in fact chew the cud under the definitions of "chewing the cud" by ancient Hebrew definitions. There are particular elements in the hare's scat that are an essential part of its diet. The hare eats those parts of its excrement.

As Cow Poke noted, the Hebrew word translated as "birds," which includes "bats" does in fact translate more properly as "winged creatures" or "flying creatures" but even then, there would be difficulties - flying creatures would not include flightless birds, flying creatures would include such things as flying fish. Some words and concepts simply won't translate from one language to another - some might translate adequately into a different other language. For example Koine Greek "biazo" can't be translated to English, but it can be translated directly to Japanese - kekkyoku suru. As adjectives, both translate to the nearest English equivalent as "violent" ... which is wholly misleading.

Also the term bird was used of other types of animals including flying ones all the way up to the 1400's

Still up to c. 1400 it was often used in the specific sense "the young of a bird, fledgling, nestling, chick," and of the young of other animals (bees, fish, snakes) and human children.

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=bird

[Cow Poke]

Also the term bird was used of other types of animals including flying ones all the way up to the 1400's

Still up to c. 1400 it was often used in the specific sense "the young of a bird, fledgling, nestling, chick," and of the young of other animals (bees, fish, snakes) and human children.

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=bird

Heck, we call missiles and satellites "birds".

[ReformedApologist]

Heck, we call missiles and satellites "birds".

We also use the term in golf as well.

[rogue06]

Badminton:

00000000000000ab000-00aaba.jpg

[Sparko]

I only object when there are contradictory statements in the Bible with science or God's qualities. For example, God's order to slay infant (1 Sam 15:3) and anything that breathes (Deut 20:16-17) is in conflict with God's quality of justice and love. Such claimed orders of God will not be made in human courts.

Why aren't you concerned with contradictory and wrong statements in the Quran? Like saying the sun sets in a muddy spring [Quran 18:86]?

[MaxVel]

Hi Maxvel,

I am afraid you missed my point. Here is my point: how a loving (1 John 4:7) and a just God (Hebrews 6:10) orders the killings infants as in 1 Samuel 15:3. It is a theological conflict. We accept that God is loving and just. But it cannot be acceptable that God orders to kill infants.

You've merely restated your objection, but not done any work to show that it is an actual objection.



God ordered infants killed, but we know God is both loving and just, therefore, we can be assured that those infants did not suffer anything unnecessarily, and that they have been completely re-compensated by God Himself for any loss they might have had.

Problem solved. Just as well God is loving and just otherwise Him ordering infants killed would be kind of bad.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Same has a habit of ignoring responses to his objections.

It's one reason I'm hardly even bothering with him.