Innerancy.

[Same Hakeem]

You saying "Old and stale. Copyiist error" is a proof that there is a contradiction between 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2.

[JonathanL]

You saying "Old and stale. Copyiist error" is a proof that there is a contradiction between 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2.

At most it proves that an error crept into the manuscripts somewhere along the line as they were being copied. It does not show an error in the original manuscript.

[KingsGambit]

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

At most it proves that an error crept into the manuscripts somewhere along the line as they were being copied. It does not show an error in the original manuscript.

You saying "At most it proves that an error crept into the manuscripts somewhere along the line as they were being copied. It does not show an error in the original manuscript. " is proof that there is a contradiction between 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2.

[JonathanL]

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

You saying "At most it proves that an error crept into the manuscripts somewhere along the line as they were being copied. It does not show an error in the original manuscript. " is proof that there is a contradiction between 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2.

It's been a long time since I actually laughed at something anyone posted here on TWeb,

[jpholding]

You saying "Old and stale. Copyiist error" is a proof that there is a contradiction between 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2.

I am saying you are a moron whose conception of inerrancy is pre-K.

[Same Hakeem]

At most it proves that an error crept into the manuscripts somewhere along the line as they were being copied. It does not show an error in the original manuscript.

It is a fact that the original manuscripts are not available.

[Apologiaphoenix]

It is a fact that the original manuscripts are not available.

Wow! Stop the presses everyone! No one knew this! We have to obviously rethink everything due to the brilliance of the Google scholar among us!

[Same Hakeem]

Wow! Stop the presses everyone! No one knew this! We have to obviously rethink everything due to the brilliance of the Google scholar among us!

Please take the following verses to reconsider if the Bible is fully inerrant;

(1) "and lusted after her lovers there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses." Ezekiel (23) : 20.

(1) "While the king sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof. A bundle of myrrh is my well-beloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breastsThy two breasts are like two young roes that are twinsand my breasts like towersand thy breasts to clusters of grapes. I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vinehy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins." Song of Solomon (7) : 3.

[tabibito]

Please take the following verses to reconsider if the Bible is fully inerrant;

(1) "and lusted after her lovers there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses." Ezekiel (23) : 20.

(1) "While the king sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof. A bundle of myrrh is my well-beloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breastsThy two breasts are like two young roes that are twinsand my breasts like towersand thy breasts to clusters of grapes. I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vinehy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins." Song of Solomon (7) : 3.

1/ The Bible is not fully inerrant
2/ The things you are posting are not errors, they're poetical analogy or hyperbole. Simply literary devices used to heighten emotional response to the text: or to put it another way, a means to improve the audience's engagement with the text.

[JonathanL]

Just noting that my amen to 'bito's post is in regards to point 2/, not 1/, as I'm unconvinced that any error has been shown in the biblical text that is either unresolvable, or can be shown to be an error introduced in the original manuscripts, as opposed to having crept in during the copying/transmission of the text.

[One Bad Pig]

I keep thinking that Hakeem's arguments can't get any worse, and then he proves me wrong!

[tabibito]

Just noting that my amen to 'bito's post is in regards to point 2/, not 1/, as I'm unconvinced that any error has been shown in the biblical text that is either unresolvable, or can be shown to be an error introduced in the original manuscripts, as opposed to having crept in during the copying/transmission of the text.

Original texts may have been inerrant - but until someone brings them out of hiding, the only ones we do have contain occasional errors.

[ReformedApologist]

There is no contradiction between 1st Kings 8:25 and 2nd Kings 9:29. The Hebrew word Malak means to become king or to reign. For example Donald Trump became President in 2016, but officially started his presidency in 2017. Your committing the fallacy of semantics and do not understand how a word is used in a different way and sense. Yawn.

[Apologiaphoenix]

1/ The Bible is not fully inerrant
2/ The things you are posting are not errors, they're poetical analogy or hyperbole. Simply literary devices used to heighten emotional response to the text: or to put it another way, a means to improve the audience's engagement with the text.

[tabibito]