THE BIBLE ISN’T WRONG, YOU ARE

https://mydailypage.com.ng/2021/10/22/the-bible-isnt-wrong-you-are/

There is a claim often made by people that goes something like this, “I don’t believe in the Bible because the Bible is full of contradictions.”
What we have found is that this claim is nothing more than empty ranting about a text that the person has not even read, let alone studied to understand what it actually says in the first place!
And this has been the same experience as Dr. Richard Averbeck, Hebrew Bible and Semitic Languages scholar and professor. Dr. Averbeck says,
“A lot of people talk about ‘contradictions in the Bible.’ I’ve been studying this stuff [professionally as a scholar] for 50 years and while I haven’t worked through every claim of contradiction, those I HAVE worked through have turned out to be NOT contradictions, but rather a misunderstanding of what the text is actually intending to communicate.
Misunderstanding the text does not mean there is a contradiction in the text.” (Averbeck)
It’s not the Bible that is wrong, it is your understanding of the Bible that is wrong.
Every so-called “contradiction” in the Bible always turns out to be due to the fact that the person claiming the contradiction does not actually understand how to read and interpret ancient documents, or engage in proper hermeneutics (the “science” of interpretation).
In other words, the person claims “contradiction” because they do not actually understand how to determine what the Biblical text is saying, or what it even means.
The Bible is not “full of contradictions;” the Bible is full of the story of God, which leads to Jesus Christ, written over a period of 2,000 years, by 40 different authors, on three different continents, who wrote in at least three different languages.

You can read more here: https://mydailypage.com.ng/2021/10/22/the-bible-isnt-wrong-you-are/

www.mydailypage.com.ng

The book of 1Samuel 13:1 and its translation in versions of the Bible has caused a great embarrassment for Christian apologists:

1.NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION
Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty- two years.

2. ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION
Saul lived for one year and then became king, and when he had reigned for two years over Israel.

3. KING JAMES BIBLE
Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel

4. NET BIBLE
Saul was [thirty] years old when he began to reign; he ruled over Israel for [forty] years.

5. NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE 1977
Saul was forty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty-two years over Israel.

6. JPS TANAKH 1917
Saul was --years old when he began to reign; and two years he reigned over Israel.

7. AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION
Saul was forty years old when he began to reign; and when he had reigned two years over Israel

8. YOUNG'S LITERAL VERSION
A son of a year is Saul in his reigning, yea, two years he hath reigned over Israel

For those who care about the truth...

The Qur'an isn't wrong. You are

Trillionempire:
THE BIBLE ISN’T WRONG, YOU ARE

https://mydailypage.com.ng/2021/10/22/the-bible-isnt-wrong-you-are/

There is a claim often made by people that goes something like this, “I don’t believe in the Bible because the Bible is full of contradictions.”
What we have found is that this claim is nothing more than empty ranting about a text that the person has not even read, let alone studied to understand what it actually says in the first place!
And this has been the same experience as Dr. Richard Averbeck, Hebrew Bible and Semitic Languages scholar and professor. Dr. Averbeck says,
“A lot of people talk about ‘contradictions in the Bible.’ I’ve been studying this stuff [professionally as a scholar] for 50 years and while I haven’t worked through every claim of contradiction, those I HAVE worked through have turned out to be NOT contradictions, but rather a misunderstanding of what the text is actually intending to communicate.
Misunderstanding the text does not mean there is a contradiction in the text.” (Averbeck)
It’s not the Bible that is wrong, it is your understanding of the Bible that is wrong.
Every so-called “contradiction” in the Bible always turns out to be due to the fact that the person claiming the contradiction does not actually understand how to read and interpret ancient documents, or engage in proper hermeneutics (the “science” of interpretation).
In other words, the person claims “contradiction” because they do not actually understand how to determine what the Biblical text is saying, or what it even means.
The Bible is not “full of contradictions;” the Bible is full of the story of God, which leads to Jesus Christ, written over a period of 2,000 years, by 40 different authors, on three different continents, who wrote in at least three different languages.

You can read more here: https://mydailypage.com.ng/2021/10/22/the-bible-isnt-wrong-you-are/

www.mydailypage.com.ng

I'm with you absolutely on this

AntiChristian:
The book of 1Samuel 13:1 and its translation in versions of the Bible has caused a great embarrassment for Christian apologists:

How?

1.NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION
Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty- two years.

2. ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION
Saul lived for one year and then became king, and when he had reigned for two years over Israel.

3. KING JAMES BIBLE
Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel

4. NET BIBLE
Saul was [thirty] years old when he began to reign; he ruled over Israel for [forty] years.

5. NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE 1977
Saul was forty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty-two years over Israel.

6. JPS TANAKH 1917
Saul was --years old when he began to reign; and two years he reigned over Israel.

7. AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION
Saul was forty years old when he began to reign; and when he had reigned two years over Israel

8. YOUNG'S LITERAL VERSION
A son of a year is Saul in his reigning, yea, two years he hath reigned over Israel

anyone can come up with their translation based on their understanding of the original text, that doesn't mean that the original text itself is contradictory.

There are no book that is open to be translated by different persons that will not have this problem, the Quran is wrongly translated too.

So, it expected that anyone who want to have the proper understanding should always make reference to the original text

paxonel:
How?
anyone can come up with their translation based on their understanding of the original text, that doesn't mean that the original text itself is contradictory.

There are no book that is open to be translated by different people that will not have this problem, the Quran is wrongly translated too

So which one do you follow?

AntiChristian:


So which one do you follow?

I make use of the King James version. Any translation that is not close to what King James offer is regarded as a postulate to me

paxonel:
I make use of the King James version. Any translation that is not close to what King James offer is regarded as a postulate to me

Chai! The same KJV that is widely acclaimed to be filled of incorrigible errors?

AntiChristian:

Chai! The same KJV that is widely acclaimed to be filled of incorrigible errors?

Funny How God and the kjv are severally Attacked! Sirely, it tells discerning people what they ought to know!

ReacherSaidNoth:
For those who care about the truth...

Your own missed-understanding is your own alone.

We have solved these puzzles!

AntiChristian:


Chai! The same KJV that is widely acclaimed to be filled of incorrigible errors?

it is not widely acclaim but only some few mischievous doctrinists like jw and the rest acclaim that.

King James is one of the oldest bible version that was used to translate many of these modern bible versions that are causing confusion today. Why?
Because most of these modern translations misunderstood a lot of contexts that has led to many inconsistencies of their contexts with the basic teachings.
For instance King James(one of the oldest version close to the original text) put it this way

1 Samuel 13:1 Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,

Meaning on the second year of Saul's reign after he had reigned one year

And a modern day translation misunderstood that context and put it own this way

1 Samuel 13:1 Saul lived for one year and then became king, and when he had reigned for two years over Israel.

Meaning Saul started reigning after one year of his life

Common sense will tell anyone comparing these two translations that the former(King James) speaks what is feasible or what is reality than the later(English standard version)

paxonel:
I make use of the King James version. Any translation that is not close to what King James offer is regarded as a postulate to me

You should look up how the translation came about. There is nothing about it that indicates it is error free.

SUPPORTED.

FIRST YEAR OF KING SAUL'S REIGN, HE STUDIED THE SYSTEMS OF KINGSHIP AND RECORDED NOTHING SPECTACULAR.

AFTER TWO YEARS, HE STARTED PERFORMING AND ACTING IN HIS OWN PECULIAR WAYS AS PREDICTED FOR HIM BY PROPHET SAMUEL.

THE HEBREW AND THE SEPTUAGINT ORIGINAL VERSIONS DIDN'T CONSIDER THIS IMPORTANT AND DIDN'T MENTION IT.

KING JAMES ORIGINAL VERSION HAS SPACE TO TALK ABOUT IT AND IT DID FLUIDLY.

From Orunto27.

paxonel:
it is not widely acclaim but only some few mischievous doctrinists like jw and the rest acclaim that.

King James is one of the oldest bible version that was used to translate many of these modern bible versions that are causing confusion today. Why?
Because most of these modern translations misunderstood a lot of contexts that has led to many inconsistencies of their contexts with the basic teachings.
For instance King James(one of the oldest version close to the original text) put it this way

1 Samuel 13:1 Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,

Meaning on the second year of Saul's reign after he had reigned one year

And a modern day translation misunderstood that context and put it own this way

1 Samuel 13:1 Saul lived for one year and then became king, and when he had reigned for two years over Israel.

Meaning Saul started reigning after one year of his life

Common senses will tell anyone comparing these two translations that the former(King James) speaks what is feasible or what is reality than the later(English standard version)

You are comparing only two versions but I gave you like six different versions.

KJV was completed in the 17th century and many manuscripts and knowledge would have been discovered in the last three centuries.

And we have other major insertions too!

AntiChristian:


You are comparing only two versions but I gave you like six different versions.

that's why i said there are new versions coming up and i used one as example to compare with kjv

KJV was completed in the 17th century and many manuscripts and knowledge would have been discovered in the last three centuries.

are these manuscripts contains new knowledge that is different from what kjv and other older versions offer?

And we have other major insertions too!

the insertions may not be different from the basic idea, only that the basic idea may have been mis-interpreted

LordReed:


You should look up how the translation came about. There is nothing about it that indicates it is error free.

ofcourse no translation of the bible presented today is error free, only that some are more accurate than others.
And older versions are expected to be more accurate than new versions because many of the new versions today were translated from older versions.
What is most important is that, basic ideas of scriptures like the crucifixion and resurrection, love for humanity and God, the covenants and commandments of God should not be altered as a result of error due to translation. And so far, i think all the translations have kept to these basic ideas.

paxonel:
ofcourse no translation of the bible presented today is error free, only that some are more accurate than others.
And older versions are expected to be more accurate than new versions because many of the new versions today were translated from older versions.
What is most important is that, basic ideas of scriptures like the crucifixion and resurrection, love for humanity and God, the covenants and commandments of God should not be altered as a result of error due to translation. And so far, i think all the translations have kept to these basic ideas.

Actually you have it backwards, the newer versions are more accurate because they found more older manuscripts upon which the translations were based.

The KJV itself is based primarily on the Bishop's Bible which is based on the Great Bible which is based on the Tyndale Bible and so on. And the reason King James ordered the translation was because the most popular Bible then the Geneva Bible was quite critical of royalty and he wanted that amended in his own translation.

AntiChristian:
The book of 1Samuel 13:1 and its translation in versions of the Bible has caused a great embarrassment for Christian apologists:

1.NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION
Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty- two years.

2. ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION
Saul lived for one year and then became king, and when he had reigned for two years over Israel.

3. KING JAMES BIBLE
Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel

4. NET BIBLE
Saul was [thirty] years old when he began to reign; he ruled over Israel for [forty] years.

5. NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE 1977
Saul was forty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty-two years over Israel.

6. JPS TANAKH 1917
Saul was --years old when he began to reign; and two years he reigned over Israel.

7. AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION
Saul was forty years old when he began to reign; and when he had reigned two years over Israel

8. YOUNG'S LITERAL VERSION
A son of a year is Saul in his reigning, yea, two years he hath reigned over Israel

Antichristian, you are not in any position to understand the Bible. Your Qur'an has so many shameful errors. The message of the Bible is clear to us Christians. To an antichrist, it is a burden of fear. Fear of the truth. Islam is a scam.

MightySparrow:



Antichristian, you are not in any position to understand the Bible. Your Qur'an has so many shameful errors. The message of the Bible is clear to us Christians. To an antichrist, it is a burden of fear. Fear of the truth. Islam is a scam.

So which Bible translation is correct and which are wrong? Do give reasons and stop diverting. Your statement is not logical.

Your phone user manual is more accurate than your bible

AntiChristian:


So which Bible translation is correct and which are wrong? Do give reasons and stop diverting. Your statement is not logical.

All are correct. The Qur'an is the most illogical book ever written.

MightySparrow:


All are correct. The Qur'an is the most illogical book ever written.

Says who follows a book with several unproven writers, unknown editors, dubious copyist and confused translators.

You don't even know what you are saying!

Sane people judge a book by considering it's author but in the case of the Bible there are so many enemies who are consciously or unknowingly fighting against this book.
When you read a book the first thing that should come to mind is the purpose for which it was written, but it's just a pity that most Bible readers have wrong motives for picking up the book!

AntiChristian:


Says who follows a book with several unproven writers, unknown editors, dubious copyist and confused translators.

You don't even know what you are saying!

Qur'an was written by many authors also. Even Satan was one of those.

MaxInDHouse:
Sane people judge a book by considering it's author but in the case of the Bible there are so many enemies who are consciously or unknowingly fighting against this book.
When you read a book the first thing that should come to mind is the purpose for which it was written, but it's just a pity that most Bible readers have wrong motives for picking up the book!

The Bible was written by mostly unknown authors so how are anonymous people supposed have much credibility?

AntiChristian:


Says who follows a book with several unproven writers, unknown editors, dubious copyist and confused translators.

You don't even know what you are saying!

The Qur'an was also written by men so you are only making a distinction without difference. The Qur'an is mostly an update on Jewish, Christian and Arabian mythologies so there is nothing special to consider about it.

LordReed:

The Bible was written by mostly unknown authors so how are anonymous people supposed have much credibility?

That's what a layman like you will think about the Bible, but the original writers of the book were just like secretaries to the real Author "God" He used them as His secretaries to pen down His words so they are not the authors of God's word! 2Timothy 3:16 compare to 2Peter 1:21; John 14:26

MaxInDHouse:


That's what a layman like you will think about the Bible, but the original writers of the book were just like secretaries to the real Author "God" He used them as His secretaries to pen down His words so they are not the authors of God's word! 2Timothy 3:16 compare to 2Peter 1:21; John 14:26

Bwahahahahaha! Yet this god cannot speak definitively to your JW Board the faithful servant. LMFAO!

LordReed:

Bwahahahahaha! Yet this god cannot speak definitively to your JW Board the faithful servant. LMFAO!

Well that's how He has always been doing, He speaks to some to pass information to others. That's what the book always say about Him!

MaxInDHouse:


Well that's how He has always been doing, He speaks to some to pass information to others. That's what the book always say about Him!

I said your doesn't speak definitively. Do you not understand what that means?