Errors in the Torah and Septuagint - Fact or Fiction?

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=cmkeller]
Sure did. The Talmud says he wrote those last verse in tears.
[/QUOTE]

Reminds me of that Simpsons episode where everybody is sleeping through the sermon. Lisa dreams she’s the smarter sidekick to Moses (Milhous). After getting across the Red Sea:

MOSES: So now we go to the Promised Land?

LISA (reading from a scroll): According to this, first we have to spend forty years wandering in the desert.

MOSES: But after that, it’s clear sailing for the Jews, right?!

LISA: Ermm . . . Yeh . . . More or less . . . Hey, is that manna?!

62

Of course there are errors in the original Hebrew and Greek. The counterpoint of the metaphorical influence underlies errors in interpretation, manipulated by the scribes of the day in a reflection of the social forces of their post-neolithic struggles to form societies beyond the “big chief” paradigm with specialist citizens supported by a growing agricultural infrastructure less vulnerable to the vagaries of city-state conflict.

I mean, duh.

63

BrainGlutton:

Jews would too. Jewish law does not consider Muslims to be idolators.

64

Well, that’s the party line, but I do know Jews who consider themselves Orthodox that aren’t ready to by it.

Strange thread.

65

That was either “buy it,” or “swear by it.”

66

[QUOTE=ThePCapeman]
sfworker, are you planning on getting back to your original question?
[/QUOTE]

I’m trying to remember what it was. Ummm, inerrant Scripture? I think there were a lot of posts and questions about what I really meant, but I think I got lost along the way.

  1. I’ve had discussions in the past about Ezekiel 26 and the burning of Tyre. I seem to recall there was a section of the city that was on the mainland and then a portion the nearby island and it figures into a possible solution. I’m trying to recall the conversation, but am fuzzy. I can look at it again. What I would likely do with that one is research into the prophecy. If God wrote the Book, I naturally would believe the answer is there (or with Him). I’ve wondered if it’s similar to the misunderstanding surrounding Isaiah 14 and Lucifer. Context is significant.

  2. I’ll take a look re: Matthew & Luke’s account of Jesus’ genealogy.

tomndebb brought up verification of events (historical evidence) and I don’t think I’ll go down that road - I don’t have the kind of time it would take to research historical innaccuracies and may not even be able to verify in the end. I’m looking for things like #1 and #2 above. Inconsitencies in accounts or contradictions.

I’ve already acknowledged my belief that English translations contain innaccuracies, so I don’t need to address those. I’m really not so concerned about those anyway, my focus is more on interpretation of Scripture as it’s being taught in churches today. Doctrinal issues. Salvation, eternity.

I’ll also go out on a limb and suggest that if there are a few items that have been recycled for centuries as inaccuracies and that’s as far as it goes, the odds are that there are explanations (other than God screwed up). In contrast if you were zinging me left and right with a couple of dozen blatant and completely obvious fictional stories that were easily discounted I would be less likely to be making noise.

Keep in mind - the Bible is as difficult to disprove as it is to prove.

My journey began with the realization that the KJV had so many revisions. I wanted to know why. I didn’t want my daughter to believe that she was going to hell because she won’t acknowledge Christ as her Savior, if it wasn’t true. Everyone goes to hell eventually. Nobody spends eternity there.

I asked myself why Billy Graham doesn’t know that hell is the grave. I’d still like to know the answer to that.

More later.

67

[QUOTE=cmkeller]
Jews would too. Jewish law does not consider Muslims to be idolators.
[/QUOTE]

What about Zoroastrians?

68

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
You are entirely wrong on this point. The Catholic Church teaches that all humans are called to be saved and that an explicit acceptance of Jesus is not some sort of arbitrary condition to keep other people out. The Catechism explicitly discusses the salvation of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and others in sections 839 through 845.

I did not respond to your question because it is not relevant. You made a specific claim regarding the book of Revelation and (all) Christian churches which is in error. Regardless of my personal beliefs, no mainstream Christian church other than a limited number of Evangelicals/Fundamentalists treat that work literally.

You have now changed the point of discussion to one of (in)errancy, but that is simply a dodge away from your original claim. If you choose to believe that the bible (as written) contians no errors, you are welcome to that belief, but making claims against faiths not your own that are in error is a violation of the principle of the Straight Dope[sup]®[/sup]: we’re supposed to be fighting ignorance, not promoting it. Spreading false claims about what other people believe is an exercise in ignorance.

You are free to challenge the beliefs of whichever religious group you choose. I do not get into fights over which beliefs are true. You are not free to make up claims about other people’s beliefs that are different than the beliefs those people actually hold.

Your claim that (most? all?) churches read Revelation literally is demonstrably false. You may think that their beliefs are still in error, but it is a factual error to claim that they accept it literally (your word).
Your claim that all mainstream Christian churches demand an acceptance of Jesus for salvation is demonstrably false (and I have provided the citation to demonstrate your error). You may have beliefs that differ from those churches and you may believe those churches to be in error, but it is a false statement to claim that they believe something when, by their words, they clearly believe something different.
[/QUOTE]

"The Catholic Church teaches that all humans are called to be saved and that an explicit acceptance of Jesus is not some sort of arbitrary condition to keep other people out. The Catechism explicitly discusses the salvation of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and others in sections "

Yes, this is true - I suspect that satan will be redeemed as well, but the Catholics also believe that earthly priests are mediators. Unless they’re of Levitical lineage that’s impossible. In addition to that, Christ is the only Mediator and that’s between mankind and God. Catholicism is riddled with their own brand of historical insanity (can you say Constantine?) The Papacy is worth chapters of discussion.

I don’t give a whit about religion. It’s human in origin. Consider “The Church” as it may relate to the whore in Revelation 17. The entire Christian Church without regard to denomination is in dire straits.

To clarify, my statement was “the majority of mainstream Christian churches”, but the fact is that it’s prophecy that “The Church” is under a great delusion in the end times. The Church is the Body of Christ - not a religious denomination. The Body of Christ is deluded and 2 Thes 2:11 tells us why centuries ahead of time.

The delusion is that you (collectively, not specifically) don’t realize that what you’re being taught is literal even while you’re told to think metaphor. The Catholic faith is different in that respect. Pergatory is a bit contentious, but they do understand that all mankind will be saved. Again, I didn’t say “all denominations are wrong about all things”. I’m not a complete idiot. There are some very key points regarding Salvation and what happens to us in the future that Evangelical and Protestant churches are clueless about. It’s not like I’m pulling this out of my ear. I’ve been there. Name a denomination and I’ve likely attended services. Except for Ekankar. Their golden pyramid freaks me out a little.

You’re mistaken if you think I dodge issues. I do believe that God is perfect and the next logical conclusion is His message is perfect as well and you’re right - it is a personal issue - but it’s my right to debate. If you’re not interested, don’t respond to threads that are of no interest.

I came here to expose the truth and I can prove what I say or I wouldn’t say it.

Not only do I have a right to question the belief system of a person who identifies themselves as Christian - it’s my responsibility according to Paul’s letters to the Churches. If you’re not a Christian, you’re not subject to Christ. You’re exempt.

I’m not saying anything I can’t prove using Scripture, so these aren’t my words are they? You give me far too much credit.

If you take nothing else away from this it should be that whatever I believe I can back up and that my only backup is Scripture. If it’s not in there, I won’t say it.

69

[QUOTE=sfworker]

You’re mistaken if you think I dodge issues. I do believe that God is perfect and the next logical conclusion is His message is perfect as well and you’re right - it is a personal issue - but it’s my right to debate. If you’re not interested, don’t respond to threads that are of no interest.

I came here to expose the truth and I can prove what I say or I wouldn’t say it.

[/QUOTE]

If you don’t dodge issues, will you answer the question I asked above about Genesis? I still don’t understand your contention that the original Bible was free of error.

Does any manuscript copy of this error-free Hebrew bible exist? Is the Hebrew Torah the original error-free bible, or a flawed copy? If the Hebrew Torah is an error-filled copy, then where can we get a copy of the original Bible? If we can’t, then what exactly do you mean when you say the real Bible is innerrant? Are you saying the original Bible dreamed up by YHWH was innerrant, but by the time it got to us humans it was full of errors? How is that different than saying the Bible is not innerrant, but is a work of humans, possibly inspired by YHWH? If there are no accurate copies of the Bible left, how do you know this?

70

[QUOTE=sfworker]
Keep in mind - the Bible is as difficult to disprove as it is to prove.
[/QUOTE]

No, it isn’t. Merely analyze the stream-line of Augustinian analyses with regard to Aristotelian identities, applied across a tapestry of a proto-crypto-Judean framework.

It’ll be obvious.

71

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]

  1. The Tetragrammaton goes YHVH (or YHWH), not YWHW.

  2. Any Muslim would insist Yahweh and Allah are different names for the same being. (Allah is simply Arabic for “the God”; Arabic-speaking Christians use that name when they pray.)

  3. It is possible that the true God of the universe is a being with absolutely no connection to the God described in the Bible (nor the Koran).

3a. Furthermore, it is possible that Yahweh/Allah exists, and really did talk to Abraham/Moses/Jesus/Mohammed – but he still is not the Supreme Being, he lied about that part; there is another above him. (I think the Gnostics used to believe something of the kind.)

  1. It is possible that the true God of the universe is an imperfect being. Not every definition of “God” requires perfection as an attribute. If he’s all-powerful and created the universe, doesn’t that make him God, even if he’s imperfect?

  2. The Bible is not evidence of God’s existence, it merely asserts it. If “the truth of Scripture proves God,” what proves the truth of Scripture?

  3. And no, there is no other evidence to suggest God exists. There are various philosophical arguments for God’s existence, but all of them are basically flawed, and all apply to God only in the abstract – none can even purport to prove the existence of the Bible’s God, or the God of any particular religious tradition or revelation. (See 3, above.) E.g., you might (be foolish enough to) accept the Ontological Argument, that God is the Perfect Being by definition (see 4), therefore must exist because nonexistence would be an imperfection; but no way can you infer from that anything else about the truth of the Bible’s story, such as the original sin of Eve and Adam, the necessity of the death of Jesus as a human sacrifice to redeem that sin, etc.

  4. Face it. You believe in God (and in the Scripture) because you want to. That’s called a leap of faith – believing something even though the evidence for it appears insufficiently conclusive even to the believer. All faith is a form of wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is not always wrong, but it is always suspect, and you don’t need to be any philosopher to see why. In any case, it’s all you’ve got.
    [/QUOTE]

“1. The Tetragrammaton goes YHVH (or YHWH), not YWHW”

I know. I’m extremely embarrassed. I’m certain there are times when God is suggesting that I not identify myself as a Christian. Fortunately He’s very forgiving.

“2. Any Muslim would insist Yahweh and Allah are different names for the same being.”

This I also know, but the reason for that is that [Mo/Mu]hammad was raised in a community of Catholics. That’s why there are so many similarities between Judaism/Christianity and Islam. However the Qur’an isn’t the same as Scripture. It’s modified Scripture and the last verse in the Book of Revelation warns against that.

“Items 3-6”.

Anything’s possible, not everything’s probable.

“7. Face it. You believe in God (and in the Scripture) because you want to…”

True I do want to, but it’s far more than that. I want to because I’ve been called to. No one can come to God without being called. Numerous NT verses reflect this and it’s evidence of our lack of free will “aka: ultimate pride”. Phil 2:13, Eph 1:11, John 19:10-11, Jesus is subject to God’s Will John 5:19.

I didn’t choose God - God chose me. John 15:16

You can’t even ask forgiveness of your own “will” - Rom 2:4

So, yes I believe in God - not simply because I want to - but because He wants me to AND I responded. “Many are called, but few are chosen” Mt 22:14.

72

The Bible is as difficult to disprove as it is to prove? More later? How disappointing. This thread and its predecessor are a challenge to show error and contradiction - an arena in which you claim to be undefeated. Can you be more persuasive in your argument or is the stalemate of “a possible solution” the best we can expect?

73

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
If you don’t dodge issues, will you answer the question I asked above about Genesis? I still don’t understand your contention that the original Bible was free of error.

Does any manuscript copy of this error-free Hebrew bible exist? Is the Hebrew Torah the original error-free bible, or a flawed copy? If the Hebrew Torah is an error-filled copy, then where can we get a copy of the original Bible? If we can’t, then what exactly do you mean when you say the real Bible is innerrant? Are you saying the original Bible dreamed up by YHWH was innerrant, but by the time it got to us humans it was full of errors? How is that different than saying the Bible is not innerrant, but is a work of humans, possibly inspired by YHWH? If there are no accurate copies of the Bible left, how do you know this?
[/QUOTE]

I guess I misunderestimated some of you. All you’re coming up with is the same old rhetoric. The “errors” you’re posting have been done to death.

I’ll respond to all of them in one post. I think I have the list somewhere.

If that’s all there is, then it ain’t much.

74

BrainGlutton:

I don’t know how Zoroastrians would view Muslims.

OK, seriously, Zoroastrianism would be considered idolatry according to Judaism. For one thing, they believe the world is controlled by two entities (one good, one evil) who are independent of one another. In addition, they believe their dieties have some physical form or manifestation. Both these points are incompatible with the Jewish conception of G-d.

75

You have misunderestimated me, because I don’t understand your position.

I’m not asking to trap you, I’m asking because I don’t understand your position.

Is the bible innerrant, or not? You have stated that it is.

Are translations of the Bible innerrant? You have stated that they are NOT, translations do have errors.

But I don’t understand if you think the Hebrew Torah that sits in every Jewish synagoge is an innerrant original bible, or a corrupted translation.

Do you believe the current Hebrew Torah is the original inerrant Bible, yes or no?

76

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Sfworker:

Genesis 1 declares that plants (on the third day) and animals (on the fifth and sixth day) were created before humans (at the end of the sixth day), and that male and female humans were created at the same time.

Genesis 2 declares that God made man (when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up), then God made plants and animals, then made the first woman.

This is obviously a contradiction. Either God created plants before he created humans, or he created humans before he created plants.

Is it your contention that the original bible contained no such contradiction? That if we were to unearth the original Torah dictated by YHWH to Moses, we would find that in that version, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contained no chronological contradictions?
[/QUOTE]

I made this exact same point in the thread that spawned this one and never really got a reply.

77

[QUOTE=sfworker]
"The Catholic Church teaches that all humans are called to be saved and that an explicit acceptance of Jesus is not some sort of arbitrary condition to keep other people out. The Catechism explicitly discusses the salvation of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and others in sections "

Yes, this is true –
[/quote]
Then we are agreed that yyou falsely posted something quite different when you said

Rather, you have a vague grocery list of complaints about any number of Christian denominations that you will trot out at random because you are either unable or unwilling to stick to your own topic as delineated by the OP. And once you think you have an opening, you go on with further irrelevant meanderings such as

Well, perhaps you are not dodging issues and are, instead, simply incapable of actually addressing an issue, even when you raise it.

You asked whether any errors could be found in Scripture. You have been shown multiple errors in Scripture that cannot be passed off as errors of translation–they exist in the original language versions. Once we addressed those issues, you wandered away from your own Original Post question and began throwing odd bits of personal belief into the mix (including several errors of fact of your own, as I have demonstrated and you have acknowledged).

Having read your last couple of posts, I suspect that this thread will shortly come to an impasse. You are going to insist that external evidence cannot be used to demonstrate errors in Scripture and, when contradictions are discovered within Scripture, you will fall back on the failure of “true understanding.”

That is fine. You are welcome to witness for your beliefs in this Forum. However, no one else has a requirement to accept your unsupported (and insupportable) beliefs, just on your say so.

Since you are pursuing a different question than the one you posted in the OP–a question I have no interest in hashing out–I will bow out of this discussion.
I do hope that you and your many opponents come to recognize (not necessarily agree with) the separate and distant perspectives each brings to the thread and that it winds down gently and in courtesy, but I hope for alot of things that will never happen.

78

[QUOTE=sfworker]

This I also know, but the reason for that is that [Mo/Mu]hammad was raised in a community of Catholics. That’s why there are so many similarities between Judaism/Christianity and Islam. However the Qur’an isn’t the same as Scripture. It’s modified Scripture and the last verse in the Book of Revelation warns against that.
[/QUOTE]

No he wasn’t. Pre-Muslim Mecca was mostly polytheistic, with small communities of Christians and Jews. Muhammed was raised by his uncle, who was a pagan. It’s true his wife’s cousin was a Nestorian (not Catholic) monk, though.

79

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
No, it isn’t. Merely analyze the stream-line of Augustinian analyses with regard to Aristotelian identities, applied across a tapestry of a proto-crypto-Judean framework.

It’ll be obvious.
[/QUOTE]

That’s actually quite funny. I identify with St. Augustine’s sense of overwhelming guilt. We part ways on the damnation of humanity doctrine though.

Look where the Evangelicals are today and it’s St. A’s fault (with help from Pat R.)

80

[QUOTE=sfworker]
However the Qur’an isn’t the same as Scripture. It’s modified Scripture and the last verse in the Book of Revelation warns against that.
[/quote]

  1. Those verses in Revelation only refer to the book of Rvelation itself. When the author warned against changing “this book,” “the Bible” didn’t exist yet. The books of the Tanakh existed (as individual books) and some of the books of the NT existed , but the author did not know that his little apocalypse was ever going to be incorporated into a canon of books which would one day be customarily bound into a single volume and commonly referred to as a single book or “Bible.”

  2. The Koran IS scripture. Any sacred writing which is recognized as having divine authority by a given religion is “scripture” to them.

  3. This misses the point. Your assertion was that if YHWH exists then the Christian Bible must be inerrant, That simply does not follow logically. As you recognize yourself, YHWH is the same God as Allah. That means that YHWH can exist and the KORAN can be true and the Bible can be errant. It could also mean that YHWH exists but that Judaism is correct and that the New Testament is in error. It could also mean that YHWH exists but NONE of the Abrahamic traditions or scriptures are true. Nothing can be logically inferred from the existence of god, even if that God is qualified as the Abrahamic deity, YHWH/Allah.