Commentary Thread: Is the Bible Inspired by God

[Same Hakeem]

37818 saying "If the parents had more than one child, the first born are always the oldest" shows how desperate he is on this. You made me smile. Thanks really.

I will assume what you said above is true in case of 99% of the firstborn of Egypt and 1% of the firstborn of Egypt is infant. The problem remains what the guilt of these 1% firstborn is.

[37818]

37818 saying "If the parents had more than one child, the first born are always the oldest" shows how desperate he is on this. You made me smile. Thanks really.

I will assume what you said above is true in case of 99% of the firstborn of Egypt and 1% of the firstborn of Egypt is infant. The problem remains what the guilt of these 1% firstborn is.

You do not understand the grace of God. In case of the passover event God Himself did the killing.

The Prophet Jesus argued, "little children . . . for such are the kingdom of God. . . . Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." (Mark 10:14-15.) And that is why Jesus said, "Except a man be born over, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3.)

God told Moses, "See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god with Me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of My hand." (Deuteronomy 32:39.)

[Christian3]

It is not assumption, It is a fact that Psalm 135:8 "He struck down the firstborn of Egypt, the firstborn of people and animals."

Well now if you think about it a little bit you will discover that a person can be the first born and be well over the age of 50.

[Christian3]

37818 saying "If the parents had more than one child, the first born are always the oldest" shows how desperate he is on this. You made me smile. Thanks really.

I will assume what you said above is true in case of 99% of the firstborn of Egypt and 1% of the firstborn of Egypt is infant. The problem remains what the guilt of these 1% firstborn is.

[Same Hakeem]

Nice way out from trouble but I am not going to shift to any topic other than the inspiration of the Bible.

[Same Hakeem]

Another crystal clear contradiction is Jehoiachin was 18 years old according to 2 Kings 24:8, but 8 years old according to 2 Chronicles 36:9 when he began to reign and he reigned 3 months according to 2 Kings 24:8, but 3 months and 10 days according to 2 Chronicles 36:9.

Please refer to the links of the Hebrew Texts;
http://biblehub.com/text/2_kings/24-8.htm
http://biblehub.com/text/2_chronicles/36-9.htm

[Christian3]

Nice way out from trouble but I am not going to shift to any topic other than the inspiration of the Bible.

No "out" at all.

[37818]

Another crystal clear contradiction is Jehoiachin was 18 years old according to 2 Kings 24:8, but 8 years old according to 2 Chronicles 36:9 when he began to reign and he reigned 3 months according to 2 Kings 24:8, but 3 months and 10 days according to 2 Chronicles 36:9.

Please refer to the links of the Hebrew Texts;
http://biblehub.com/text/2_kings/24-8.htm
http://biblehub.com/text/2_chronicles/36-9.htm

The existence of this known variant, how does that prove both readings are originally as written as you seem to suppose?

[Same Hakeem]

The existence of this known variant, how does that prove both readings are originally as written as you seem to suppose?

Obviously one must be wrong. Both cannot be right. We lack the originals of the Bible and hence educated guesses are made.

[Cerebrum123]

Obviously one must be wrong. Both cannot be right. We lack the originals of the Bible and hence educated guesses are made.

This is equally true of the Quran, especially considering what Uthman did. I mean, he went and burned all variants because of the issues they were having.

[Christian3]

Another crystal clear contradiction is Jehoiachin was 18 years old according to 2 Kings 24:8, but 8 years old according to 2 Chronicles 36:9 when he began to reign and he reigned 3 months according to 2 Kings 24:8, but 3 months and 10 days according to 2 Chronicles 36:9.

Please refer to the links of the Hebrew Texts;
http://biblehub.com/text/2_kings/24-8.htm
http://biblehub.com/text/2_chronicles/36-9.htm

The first is a copyist error; As has been explained to you -- "known copyist errors do not constitute errors in the original autographs of Bible as God gave it."

and the second:

"the author of the Chronicles has been more specific with his numbering, whereas the author of Kings is simply rounding off the number of months, assuming that the additional ten days is not significant enough to mention."

It appears you are going through a list. Answers to the list can be found here:

http://gluefox.com/min/contrad.htmhttp://www.answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv12.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/Autho...quotations.pdf

Using the same standard you are using, the Qur'an is not the word of God.

[Same Hakeem]

Christian3 saying "The first is a copyist error; As has been explained to you -- "known copyist errors do not constitute errors in the original autographs of Bible as God gave it" is an admission of the existence of contradiction regardless of the reason.

Contributing such contradiction to copyist error is a baseless assumption since no has seen the originals because these originals are lost.

[Cerebrum123]

Christian3 saying "The first is a copyist error; As has been explained to you -- "known copyist errors do not constitute errors in the original autographs of Bible as God gave it" is an admission of the existence of contradiction regardless of the reason.

Contributing such contradiction to copyist error is a baseless assumption since no has seen the originals because these originals are lost.

Kind of figured you would ignore the rest of his post that shows far worse corruption of the Quranic texts.

[37818]

Christian3 saying "The first is a copyist error; As has been explained to you -- "known copyist errors do not constitute errors in the original autographs of Bible as God gave it" is an admission of the existence of contradiction regardless of the reason.

Contributing such contradiction to copyist error is a baseless assumption since no has seen the originals because these originals are lost.

Does not prove the original had the error.

Obviously one must be wrong. Both cannot be right. We lack the originals of the Bible and hence educated guesses are made.

Yeah, the difference between a believer in God's word and one who chooses to disallow the original from God is without the error.

[Same Hakeem]

Cerebrum123 saying "Kind of figured you would ignore the rest of his post that shows far worse corruption of the Quranic texts" is true because this thread is commentary on the debate of the inspiration of the Bible.