However, ‘The Bible’ as we know of today was compiled by men… AND there are MANY versions of it.
Amongst Christians, those who profess to follow Christ, there are constant arguments and debates on which ‘Bible’ is the correct.
So, unfortunately your assessment that the ‘Bible cannot err’ is not entirely true.. which Bible version are you referring to? KJV? New American? Apocrypha included? Coptic bible with Book of Enoch? … which?
There's ultimately 2 versions of the Bible on the planet.
On one side, you have the Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament and the Textus Receptus New Testament written in Koine Greek. These are the documents used to translate the KJV and the Geneva Bible.
On the other side, you have the Septuagint, a Greek Old Testament which was translated by Alexandrian scholars funded by Ptolemy II Philadelphus AKA Ptolemy the Great and a New Testament written in Classical Greek.
The modern copies of the Septuagint are largely based on the Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus texts. The Sinaiticus text was rediscovered in a convent waste paper basket located in Mt. Sinai and has been edited multiple times. The Alexandrinus gets its name because it was originally discovered in Alexandria, Egypt, relocated to Constantinople, and was given to Charles I, the Roman Catholic sympathetic King of England, and it's remained in the British library until the present. Vaticanus has been in the Vatican collection since at least the 15th century.
The real question is which version is correct? I choose the one that contains Acts 8:37 without a footnote.
NIV version of Acts 8:37 (The verse is actually missing)-
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Here is the chapter recording Philip's encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch, a devout Jew who is converted to Christianity. The eunuch sees some water and asks what hinders him from being baptized.
Acts 8:36
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
In the NIV, the eunuch's question is never answered.
C’mon pops, you can’t be this clueless nor are you so blind that you can’t apply discernment or perhaps have a sound discussion without patronizing comments?
This type of thinking compliments the likes of ‘extreme Muslim jihadist’, don’t you agree? Agree with your view of the holy text, otherwise belittlement is the answer. Foolish.
My point stands sir, the ‘Bible’ as you know it, or whichever version you prescribe to, has been debated over a thousand times, over the centuries.
Ah yes, the Norman Geisler, perhaps you should look into his history eh? You might find out some interesting facts… doesn’t mean his writings are bad, but perhaps context is good in this case.
Either way, why disparage me? I follow Jesus, why the attack? Did I attack you? Did you somehow read my reply/comment as an attack on you, or the faith?
If you truly see my comment as ‘bad faith’, perhaps you should reconsider all your interactions with both Christians (all denominations) and also non Christians… how then perhaps can you spread the Good News if you treat them like me?
I agree with you, God cannot err.
However, ‘The Bible’ as we know of today was compiled by men… AND there are MANY versions of it.
Amongst Christians, those who profess to follow Christ, there are constant arguments and debates on which ‘Bible’ is the correct.
So, unfortunately your assessment that the ‘Bible cannot err’ is not entirely true.. which Bible version are you referring to? KJV? New American? Apocrypha included? Coptic bible with Book of Enoch? … which?
There's ultimately 2 versions of the Bible on the planet.
On one side, you have the Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament and the Textus Receptus New Testament written in Koine Greek. These are the documents used to translate the KJV and the Geneva Bible.
On the other side, you have the Septuagint, a Greek Old Testament which was translated by Alexandrian scholars funded by Ptolemy II Philadelphus AKA Ptolemy the Great and a New Testament written in Classical Greek.
The modern copies of the Septuagint are largely based on the Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus texts. The Sinaiticus text was rediscovered in a convent waste paper basket located in Mt. Sinai and has been edited multiple times. The Alexandrinus gets its name because it was originally discovered in Alexandria, Egypt, relocated to Constantinople, and was given to Charles I, the Roman Catholic sympathetic King of England, and it's remained in the British library until the present. Vaticanus has been in the Vatican collection since at least the 15th century.
The real question is which version is correct? I choose the one that contains Acts 8:37 without a footnote.
NIV version of Acts 8:37 (The verse is actually missing)-
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:37&version=NIV
King James version-
Acts 8:37
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Here is the chapter recording Philip's encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch, a devout Jew who is converted to Christianity. The eunuch sees some water and asks what hinders him from being baptized.
Acts 8:36
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
In the NIV, the eunuch's question is never answered.
Very interesting, thanks for writing all that. Great signposts for me to go dig further.
C’mon pops, you can’t be this clueless nor are you so blind that you can’t apply discernment or perhaps have a sound discussion without patronizing comments?
This type of thinking compliments the likes of ‘extreme Muslim jihadist’, don’t you agree? Agree with your view of the holy text, otherwise belittlement is the answer. Foolish.
My point stands sir, the ‘Bible’ as you know it, or whichever version you prescribe to, has been debated over a thousand times, over the centuries.
Ah yes, the Norman Geisler, perhaps you should look into his history eh? You might find out some interesting facts… doesn’t mean his writings are bad, but perhaps context is good in this case.
Either way, why disparage me? I follow Jesus, why the attack? Did I attack you? Did you somehow read my reply/comment as an attack on you, or the faith?
If you truly see my comment as ‘bad faith’, perhaps you should reconsider all your interactions with both Christians (all denominations) and also non Christians… how then perhaps can you spread the Good News if you treat them like me?
Foolish.