Well, call me a gross over-simplifier, but I tend to think there’s some correlation with believing that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so” and believing that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. We’re not just talking about David vs. Goliath here. That particular “one story” is in direct contradiction with the entire weight of the scientific evidence about the history of the planet Earth and the human race. To hold to it as a factually accurate historical account implies a high degree of attachment to the Bible as an error-free account. It may not be logically impossible to believe that the Bible is something other than inerrant, and to believe in recent special creation of human beings in the last 10,000 years (for one thing, a non-Christian operating from some other mythology might do so), but I don’t think it’s jumping to any huge conclusions that if 45% of Americans accept recent creationism, then a very large proportion of that group are probably “Biblical inerrantists”.
Well, actually I think it points to a problem in the wording of Gallup’s poll question. I suspect the Gallup poll is worded in such a way that it under-represents belief in Biblical inerrancy, much the same way that a poll which equated “atheism” with “faith that there is not a God” would under-report atheism.
Well, “fundamentalist” and “inerrantist”, yeah, pretty much. From the Britannica: “fundamentalism: conservative movement in American Protestantism arising out of the millenarian movement of the 19th century and emphasizing as fundamental to Christianity the literal interpretation and absolute inerrancy of the Scriptures…”
(Note that I would quibble somewhat with the Britannica’s use of the word “literal”.)
I guess I could have used “Fundamentalist” (with a capital “F”) to indicate I was speaking of Christian Fundamentalists, and not “fundamentalist” Muslims or Hindu “fundamentalists” or “fundamentalist” Scientologists. The problem with that is that, as has been discussed before, there are several groups–classical Fundamentalists, conservative Pentecostals, and traditional Calvinists–who all believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. In this sense, Christian fundamentalist (including Bob Jones University style Fundamentalists, theologically conservative Pentecostals, old-time Calvinists, etc.) is synonymous with “[Biblical] inerrantist”.
As for “literalist”, I guess what I’m saying is that, as in the Gallup poll question, “literalist” is something of a straw man. No one believes the Bible is “literally true” in every word, if by that we mean that they believe that seven-headed monsters will rampage across the Earth at the millennium. Everyone believes parts of the Bible are symbolic or allegorical or must be read in light of other parts and so on. Some people–inerrantists, including Fundamentalists-with-a-capital-F, along with some other conservative Protestant groups–believe that the Bible is without error and is infallible on all matters of which it speaks.
Are you serious? The phrase “all fours” means the animal in question has but four limbs. As a baby, did you not go about on all fours until you learned to walk?
Yes, and I equally went about on all twos (although there’s no such phrase).
Can you please provide a cite indicating that the Hebrew from which this phrase was translated meant specifically that the animal walked on four out of four legs, and that it specifically precludes a meaning of four out of six, or eight, or one hundred and th-rty-seven…
Okay, on this page is all of Leviticus 11 (KJV). Click on the links to see the original Hebrew words. For example, the word sherets is the one that is translated as “insects”. Arba is Hebrew for “four”. 'owph can mean “flying creatures, fowl, insects,” or “birds”! (But there are no four-legged birds, so the author could not have meant them, could he?)
That’s a pretty cool site, but I’m afraid it doesn’t clarify anything. It gives the words that were translated as insects and four, neitehr of which I disputed, but it doesn’t give the whole phrase.
Basically all we have is “All winged insects proceed four”. In other words all winged insects that walk upon four legs, not on four legs exclusively. It says flying insects that go on all fours so obviously there is no need for the four legs to be the sole and only transportation configuration adopted, merely that at some time four legs are utilised in movement. On all fours just sounds to English for my liking. Does the German version translate to the same phrase? Does the original phrase actually preclude animals that have seventy-three legs but walk upon four? I strongly suspect that the original meant something like ‘go upon all fours’, which would not present any contradictions at all. Can anyone provide an original complete with translations?
Tell me jab1, if I wrote in a paper that kangaroos, bears and humans moved on two legs would you say that that was an error?
“To walk on four legs” means “to walk on four legs.” Gaspode is correct in pointing out that the phraseology does not mean that insects necessarily have just four legs.
Yes, if you never said that they occaisionally go around on all fours when necessary (or the mood strikes them). Omitting a fact is an error. One must strive to be complete.
But that’s not the phrase used in the English translations of Leviticus. The phrase is “all fours,” NOT “on four legs.” And “all fours” means the creature in question has but four limbs, not six or more.
You guys could not have passed Mrs. Duce’s high school English class. (She was my English teacher.) I passed and with exceptional grades. I didn’t appreciate her toughness then, but I sure do now. (If I make grammatical errors now, it isn’t HER fault.)
But surely by saying that kangaroos move on two legs I am ommitiing the fact that they sometimes move on four. So is the staement “Kangaroos move on two legs” crrect or not?
And then can you please tell me whether the following are correct.
Cats have fur.
Jim gas 6 dollar coins, Joe walks up to Jim and asks if Jim has four dollars. Jim says “Yes, I have four dollars”. Is Jim in error? He doesn’t have four dollars, he has six. By the reasoning you used above Jim can’t say he has four dollars, yet every single person in the English speaking world would reply ‘Yes’ to Joe’s question. (Unless they didn’t want to lend Joe money.) So what’s your answer jab1?
But as I have pointed out, that’s an English translation. This was written in Hebrew and the Hebrew simply says insect that proceeds on four. No-one’s ever said that translations are perfect. For crying out loud in one of the early translations Moses had horns on his head, which is apparently quite an acceptable translation, but everyone now agrees it meant that he had rays of light proceeding from his head. Which do you think is more likely jab1? The error occured because native speakers of a language automatically know what a word translates to in context, something that isn’t always obvious in translation. That’s why you can’t do a translation using just a dictionary, you need to study the language. I’m surprised I need to explain this to you.
Oh God I’m getting English lessons from an American High School student. Forgive me if I don’t immediately fold jab1. You certainly wouldn’t have passed * Dr. * Zelmer’s undergrad communications course. Do my qualifications beat yours? Does it matter :rolleyes:
And was she just your English teacher? She wasn’t also someone elses English teacher? Surely this should read ‘my class’s English teacher’. Come on Jab1, lack of completeness is an error you know.
Is that really the best you’ve got? Seriously jab1, when I hear you talking about these Biblical errancies over at The Pizza Parlour I assume you mean some of the big ones, not this stuff that comes down to how you choose to translate the word.
Quick lesson in animal physiology.
Hares are lagomorphs. Lagomorphs are di-copric coprophages. In simple terms they produce two types of faeces, one that is designed to be discarded and one that is specifically designed to be re-eaten straight from their arseholes to enable complete digestion. If they didn’t do this they’d starve to death in the wild. Cud is derived from the middle English and means in the broadest terms simpy something chewable. It obviously isn’t Hebrew. If the Hebrew word translated as cud meant ‘food that is chewed after partial digestion’ then hares do in fact chew the cud. Saying this is an errancy requires one to believe that the Hebrew word translated ‘cud’ and the English ‘cud’ are perfectly synonymous despite completely different roots. Not very likely is it?
Come on is that really the best you’ve got? Errancies that rely on quibbling over the exact meaning of translations when using another equally plausible translation elimates any hint of error? That’s a translation error, not an errancy.
It’s correct as far as it goes, but it is incomplete. It’s more correct to say, “Normally, kangaroos move on two legs, but they sometimes move on all fours.”
Most cats have fur. An exception is the hairless Sphinx cat (like “Mr. Bigglesworth” in the Austin Powers movies).
Yes. He has six, so he should have said “six”. (Unless he honestly believed he only had four.)
I was trying to explain that to you.
I graduated high school in 1976.
Many Christians believe that not only is the Word of God inerrant, they also believe that its translations are inerrant. Some, however, like Jack Chick and his ilk, believe that the KJV is the only inerrant translation.
When I talk about mistakes in the Bible, I am talking about translation errors in addition to the errors in the original.
I didn’t know that.
The Hebrew word for “cud” is gerah, and has no other meaning. And why can’t they be synonymous? The Hebrew word for “moon” is Yareach. (Pronounced “yaw-ray’-akh.”) Two completely different words with completely different roots, and yet they are synonymous. They are, quite simply, two names for the same thing.
Look again at Leviticus 11:3-7. Permitted food animals must all “parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.” The following verses list animals that do chew cud: camels, coneys, hare and swine and say they must not be eaten because they don’t meet all the criteria. If someone takes four completely different animals and says they all “chew cud,” then I say he’s thinking of the same exact process.
I actually think religion loses all value once you regard it as the literal truth. Why?
Well, it clearly leaves the religion open to factual/logical criticism. If you’ve claimed that the religion has a factual basis, and then someone conclusively disproves that, then you don’t have a religion any more.
But, more broadly:
A religion is generally a set of principles about how to live a life. All the hocus-pocus crap is secondary. I hope no-one still bases their belief in Christianity on the “fact” that Christ did a whole bunch of cool stuff, like walking on water; no, I would hope that they’re Christians because Christianity provides an ethical basis for their lives. This makes me have a problem with heaven & hell, because it leads to people doing good things for rewards and out of fear of divine reprisal, and not doing good things because they’re good.
Some theological beliefs may also be understood as metaphors. For instance, I know that when I took Communion (back when I was a Christian), that wasn’t actually the body & blood of Christ, but the point of the whole thing was the idea of a God giving people the chance to be good people. As an allegory, mind you. In fact, I think the whole thing about Christ works really well as an allegory, and is at least one attractive thing about Christianity, but not as the literal truth.
So that being the case why don’t you write like that youself? The answer is because it’s uneccessary and doesn’t add a damn thing to clarity. To take a sentence from a random web page we have:
“Anthropological research suggests that the Polynesian islands were settled by people originating from Asia, spreading through the south Pacific, and arriving in Hawai’i very late in the process.”
You honestly believe that this is erroneous because the author didn’t say:
"Anthropological, although techically not true because both genders are equally valid in such research so actually anthropological, which implies male only, is not true, research, well actually research and some inevitable deductive reasoning not strictly associated with the research, suggests, to most people anyway, there is some dispute so suggests may not be the best word, that the, when I say the I don’t mean to imply that there is only one group of Polynesian Isalnds, over the course of time several have vanished and many new ones have appeared since human colonisation from Asia so obviously those aren’t able to be legitimately included but I say the even though I mean the ones that existed at the time not the current, Polynesian Islands were settled, althoughed settled implies deliberate permanant dwelling when in reality a combimnation of settlement, colinistaion and occasional regression was more likely the case, by people, and of course various other species including their domesticates, stow-aways like rats and their parasites including arange of worms, lice etc, originating, well actually they originated like the rest of H. sapiens from Africa but their last point of abode was what we now call Asia, from Asia, although Asia is such an imprecise term and in all probability south-east Asia is more correct since the odds of anyone travelling to Fiji directly from Khazakstan is fairly remote, spreading, although these weren’t the exact same people you understand, these were their descendants mainly, with some later immigrants undoubtedly mixed through…
Come on jab1, this isn’t less erroneous than the original. For every clarification you generate more potential quibbles and the whole thing becomes an unreadable mess. It’s only erroneous if the information isn’t true, not if you misread the authors intent due to a faulty translation.
Then lets not call it an errancy. Until someone comes along who speaks ancient Hebrew lets call it a translation error and give the author the benfit of the doubt.
Bit of a straw-man cum true-scotsman isn’t it. Saying that you have examples of errors because the extremist position says they are. It’s as strange as picking the extremist views of evolutionists and finding flaws based on that and hence discrediting the whole shebang. Know thine enemy, don’t become him.
No, it may have no other meaning that survives. Cud is an English word and one meaning is ‘to chew’ or ‘a chew’ (see ‘quid’ according to MW). Is that all that cud means? In that case hares do chew that which is chewable. Obviously this is the nearest English translation, but it’s not perfect.
I never said they can’t be synonymous, merely that it’s unlikely. The moon is a unique individul item, it’s a best case example as you well know. Try looking for a translation of sky. You get heaven, and air and wind and all sorts of things, same with earth. The less unique the use of a word is the harder it is to find a perfect translation.
No that’s an English word meaning cud. Now what do you suppose a medieval peasant or Jewish nomad would have called coprophagy? Do you concede that it’s plausible they would have called it chewing the cud when they saw a hare re-chewing the same food they fed him three hours ago? Do you honestly thinking that Hebrew nomads really knew about rumens and abomasums and defined cud exactly as you define above?
That aside Merriam-Webster gives an alternative definition as quid, “cut or wad of something chewable” so chew the cud equally translates to ‘chew something chewable’. That is coprophagy. This is the problem with assuming we can do a translation without knowing the language.
And I say he is too, the process of re-chewing indigestible vegetable matter to increase nutrient absorption and mechanical breakdown. This whole ‘error’ relies on the English word cud and the Hebrew word cud being precisely synonomous. If they are merely similar in the way that moon and sattelite are there is no errancy.
Seriously jab1 this isn’t an error, it’s nit-picking over whether a cud was till considered a cud to an ancient Hebrew if it passed out of the stomach before being re-swallowed. If cud was simply plant material re-chewed to aid digestion then yeah, hares chew the cud. Coprophagy and rumination are the same action on the same substrate for the same purpose and you conclude that they couldn’t have had the same name because of the part of the digestive tract the substrate comes from. I really don’t think you would convince the reasonable man who frequents court rooms. It’s certainly far to weak to convince an inerrantist.
Thanks guys… this is definately the most humorous religious-like debate I’ve seen in a while. I didn’t think such mundane nitpickery was possible. Kangeroos, hares, and insects, oh my!
I’m just ressurecting this thread because Kaptain K, in another thread, has requested “tell me whats wrong with the bible and I’ll help you understand that it’s not really a defect…
Try it guys! Test me”
And I’m always one to oblige. So Cap’n, try these:
How did Judas die?:
Matthew 27:5
So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
Acts 1:18
With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.
Who killed Goliath, and who did Elhanan kill, Goliath, or his brother, or both?
1 Samuel 17
A champion named Goliath, who was from Gath, came out of the Philistine camp…His spear shaft was like a weaver’s rod…So David triumphed over the Philistine … he struck down the Philistine and killed him.
2 Samuel 21
In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.
1 Chronicles 20:5
In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.
On which day did Nebuzaradan arrive in Jerusalem and burn the temple?
2 Kings 25:8
On the seventh day of the fifth month, in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan commander of the imperial guard, an official of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem.
9
He set fire to the temple of the LORD, the royal palace and all the houses of Jerusalem. Every important building he burned down.
Jeremiah 52
12
On the tenth day of the fifth month, in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan commander of the imperial guard, who served the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem.
13
He set fire to the temple of the LORD, the royal palace and all the houses of Jerusalem. Every important building he burned down.
I was trying to explain that to you.