27
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 270:
Line 270: + + +
Debate:Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless. (view source)
Revision as of 16:12, August 6, 2014
, 16:12, August 6, 2014no edit summary
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]
==No Grave Errors==
After reading through this article there are too many angles to be discussed all at once, and it's a long article. The bible doesn't have grave errors, but of course, they can be if one WANTS it to be. I'm not saying this in your case, but am suggesting it as an option. Now the good thing about the bible is that the bible answers the bible. I will answer only one at this stage. If you feel you'd like to comment, please feel free, or ask about another...I'll take the lineage of Christ in the two gospel accounts, as has already been approached. Jesus' true father was Jehovah of course, not Joseph, but as the scripture states, "...being the son, as the opinion was,..."then goes into one lineage. The other lineage shows the other family line. Obviously, one is "Dad" even though step-dad, and the other is Mum. For scriptural proof of this being acceptable, you can consider brother-in-law marriage, and also Ruth and Naomi and whose child although truly Ruth's child, is said in Ruth 4:17 "Then the neighbour ladies gave it a name, saying: "A son has been born to Naomi", when we know very well it was Ruth who was the mother. So not so much grave errors, but more so errors with understanding other angles that may be easily overlooked.