Biblical Errors?

[th1b.taylor]

[font="Georgia][size="2"]Num 22:28[/size][/font][font="Georgia][size="2"] And Jehovah opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? [/size][/font]

[font="Georgia][size="2"]Num 22:29[/size][/font][font="Georgia][size="2"] And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me, I would there were a sword in my hand, for now I had killed thee. [/size][/font]

[font="Georgia][size="2"]Num 22:30[/size][/font][font="Georgia][size="2"] And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden all thy life long unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? and he said, Nay. [/size][/font]

[font="Georgia][size="2"]Num 22:31[/size][/font][font="Georgia][size="2"] Then Jehovah opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of Jehovah standing in the way, with his sword drawn in his hand; and he bowed his head, and fell on his face. [/size][/font]




In Numbers 22 we find one of the favorite children's stories that is easily taught by most any Children's Teacher. From the story it is easily taught that God is so Omnipotent that He can use a Donkey or a Jackass to speak through or just cause the animal to speak a language understood by men. For our children, if taught properly, this is a great and entertaining lesson about God and the unusual manor in which He is known to work but for the Atheist and New Christian it poses a question that most long term Christians cannot answer even though the answer is clear through the Holy Spirit's teaching and influence.




[font="Georgia][size="2"]Num 22:12[/size][/font][font="Georgia][size="2"] And God said unto Balaam, Thou shalt not go with them; thou shalt not curse the people; for they are blessed. [/size][/font]




In this verse we see that God has forbidden Balaam to go to Balak for the purpose of cursing the descendants or Israel. Then we see that God gives Balaam permission to go;




[font="Georgia][size="2"]Num 22:20[/size][/font][font="Georgia][size="2"] And God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men are come to call thee, rise up, go with them; but only the word which I speak unto thee, that shalt thou do. [/size][/font]




From here and the opening passage we see what is seen by some as the scriptures contradicting themselves. Now, every Christian can Parrot the proper response to this assertion, “There are no conflicts in, nor does scripture contradict itself,” but there are very few that can defend this position in relation to this passage. When we read the scriptures, unlike the Movies and the One-Eyed Monster, we must think to understand or to perceive the truth of what is being said.

1. In verse 20 we all pick up that God gave Balaam permission to go with the Princes to Balak but most folks seem to just slide over the important and pertinent portion of this verse, there is a condition added to the permission, Balaam could only say what God would tell him to say. At this point God's Omniscience becomes important. (Psa. 33:13-22, Isa. 40:13,14) Remembering that God does not make mistakes, that God knows what we will do say or, even, think before we do it and then the nature of mankind. Balaam had been offered a fortune for cursing the Israelites and although it is not explained and it is true that I am going to go beyond what scripture states but I'm going to tell you that Balaam got greedy and was thinking of the treasure he would be given for cursing these people.
   

I might have come to the wrong conclusion but I do have a very close and moment to moment association with the Holy Spirit and I do not feel the correcting hand of the Spirit of God on this matter. God did not disapprove of Balaam going because He had given him permission to go but only to speak what He, God, had for him to say and God did not intend to curse His chosen.




My prayer is not as much that you will use this example as it that you would learn to analyze scripture in the clear light of other scripture and to walk closer to God.

 

[Martin W.]

Balaam was a gentile used by God as a prophet. I think he was the only gentile god ever used.

Previously Balaam used to be for hire to curse Israel but God converted him (for a time) to bless Israel instead (even though he had been paid to curse)

God was pleased with Balaam for a time , but later had him slain by the sword because of his former actions against Israel.

From memory , and subject to correction.

Welcome to the forum

A. Martin
Woodside

 

[deprofundis]

On the more general subject, I think the Bible as a document is, at this point, historically susceptible to mortal errors in copying, either intentional or otherwise. Translation is always flawed, too, since some concepts never translate.

 

[veteran]

[font="Georgia][size="2"]Num 22:28[/size][/font][font="Georgia][size="2"] And Jehovah opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? [/size][/font]

[font="Georgia][size="2"]Num 22:29[/size][/font][font="Georgia][size="2"] And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me, I would there were a sword in my hand, for now I had killed thee. [/size][/font]

[font="Georgia][size="2"]Num 22:30[/size][/font][font="Georgia][size="2"] And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden all thy life long unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? and he said, Nay. [/size][/font]

[font="Georgia][size="2"]Num 22:31[/size][/font][font="Georgia][size="2"] Then Jehovah opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of Jehovah standing in the way, with his sword drawn in his hand; and he bowed his head, and fell on his face. [/size][/font]




In Numbers 22 we find one of the favorite children's stories that is easily taught by most any Children's Teacher. From the story it is easily taught that God is so Omnipotent that He can use a Donkey or a Jackass to speak through or just cause the animal to speak a language understood by men. For our children, if taught properly, this is a great and entertaining lesson about God and the unusual manor in which He is known to work but for the Atheist and New Christian it poses a question that most long term Christians cannot answer even though the answer is clear through the Holy Spirit's teaching and influence.




[font="Georgia][size="2"]Num 22:12[/size][/font][font="Georgia][size="2"] And God said unto Balaam, Thou shalt not go with them; thou shalt not curse the people; for they are blessed. [/size][/font]




In this verse we see that God has forbidden Balaam to go to Balak for the purpose of cursing the descendants or Israel. Then we see that God gives Balaam permission to go;




[font="Georgia][size="2"]Num 22:20[/size][/font][font="Georgia][size="2"] And God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men are come to call thee, rise up, go with them; but only the word which I speak unto thee, that shalt thou do. [/size][/font]




From here and the opening passage we see what is seen by some as the scriptures contradicting themselves. Now, every Christian can Parrot the proper response to this assertion, “There are no conflicts in, nor does scripture contradict itself,” but there are very few that can defend this position in relation to this passage. When we read the scriptures, unlike the Movies and the One-Eyed Monster, we must think to understand or to perceive the truth of what is being said.

1. In verse 20 we all pick up that God gave Balaam permission to go with the Princes to Balak but most folks seem to just slide over the important and pertinent portion of this verse, there is a condition added to the permission, Balaam could only say what God would tell him to say. At this point God's Omniscience becomes important. (Psa. 33:13-22, Isa. 40:13,14) Remembering that God does not make mistakes, that God knows what we will do say or, even, think before we do it and then the nature of mankind. Balaam had been offered a fortune for cursing the Israelites and although it is not explained and it is true that I am going to go beyond what scripture states but I'm going to tell you that Balaam got greedy and was thinking of the treasure he would be given for cursing these people.

I might have come to the wrong conclusion but I do have a very close and moment to moment association with the Holy Spirit and I do not feel the correcting hand of the Spirit of God on this matter. God did not disapprove of Balaam going because He had given him permission to go but only to speak what He, God, had for him to say and God did not intend to curse His chosen.




My prayer is not as much that you will use this example as it that you would learn to analyze scripture in the clear light of other scripture and to walk closer to God.

Good post.

That's one of many Biblical examples where many miss a required 'condition' that explains God's actions in turning around even works by the wicked that work against His people. No translation errors there, even though the wicked would naturally hate that example of God reversing the working of the wicked prophets like Balaam.

 

[th1b.taylor]

On the more general subject, I think the Bible as a document is, at this point, historically susceptible to mortal errors in copying, either intentional or otherwise. Translation is always flawed, too, since some concepts never translate.

I cannot lie to you here, that statement just lies there like a dead dog and does nothing! I usually jump all over non-believers for such a broad and un-proven and un provable statement as that! To see a person, man or woman, make that type of statement causes me to immediately wonder about the persons Spiritual Condition! God is the only unlimited being, artifact, or creation there is and yet that statement declares, in a blaring fashion, that God cannot keep His written revelation of Himself pure.

I'm sorry, but that is incorrect!

 

[deprofundis]

Then how do you account for translations which offer clearly different meanings for the same word? God is perfect, we are not, and moreover, our languages are not perfectly identical. There are concepts and words in Greek for which no exact English translation can be given.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Then how do you account for translations which offer clearly different meanings for the same word? God is perfect, we are not, and moreover, our languages are not perfectly identical. There are concepts and words in Greek for which no exact English translation can be given.

You're using the same tactic as the Atheist that is unable to defend his or her position. I asked you for specifics and you went straight back to generalization. On top of that you were very rude and ignored the God issue.

 

[aspen]

I cannot lie to you here, that statement just lies there like a dead dog and does nothing! I usually jump all over non-believers for such a broad and un-proven and un provable statement as that! To see a person, man or woman, make that type of statement causes me to immediately wonder about the persons Spiritual Condition! God is the only unlimited being, artifact, or creation there is and yet that statement declares, in a blaring fashion, that God cannot keep His written revelation of Himself pure.

I'm sorry, but that is incorrect!

It is strange to me that claims about inerrancy in the Bible always turn to accusations about the Nature of God - as if God's character was dependent on our claims about a book.....

 

[Duckybill]

Then how do you account for translations which offer clearly different meanings for the same word? God is perfect, we are not, and moreover, our languages are not perfectly identical. There are concepts and words in Greek for which no exact English translation can be given.

God has no problem communicating with anyone of any nation or language.

 

[TexUs]

I think Scripture itself, as written, is not contradictory. I do agree with OP's assessment that it's a conditional statement.



Now, let's be clear about the "variances of languages" that was brought up...
People try to make the argument like it was Greek -> Latin -> German -> Dutch -> English
In reality, it's Greek -> English.

I WILL agree, however, with certain errors in the copying of the actual Greek. For example...
We have all heard of the "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle" story.
In reality there are two very similar words at work: kamilos and kamelos:

As you can see, these words are almost identical, and you can imagine how a scribe early on could have made an errant brush stroke in recording these words.
Rope through an eye of a needle would've made much more sense. Instead, people today try to come up with some nonsense about camel's passing through the "eye of the needle" gate or some ridiculous notion. But looking at this, rope through a needle makes much more sense.

The former is a rope, the latter is a camel. Perhaps an early scribal error led to the confusing passage we have today.

 

[deprofundis]

You're using the same tactic as the Atheist that is unable to defend his or her position. I asked you for specifics and you went straight back to generalization. On top of that you were very rude and ignored the God issue.

Actually, you did not ask for specifics; if you had, I would gladly have given them. Instead, you told me you "usually jump all over" people for making that statement (which "lies there like a dead dog") and told me you wondered about my Spiritual Condition. So I really don't see how I was rude, either, but my apologies if I came off as such.

Anyhow, for a specific example, let's look at Corinthians 6:9-10.

NASB: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."

KJV: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,[sup] [/sup]Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
(Note that "homosexuals" is changed into "abusers of themselves with mankind")

New Living Translation: "Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God."
(Note that "effeminate" is changed to "male prostitute" -- that's quite a big difference, if you ask me)

Worldwide English: "Do you not know that bad people will have no part in the kingdom where God rules? Do not be fooled. There are some people who will not have part in that place. They are those who commit adultery of any kind, those who have idols, or steal, or are always wanting more, or talk wrong things about people, or drink plenty of strong drink, or take things by force, or curse."
(Huh, no mention of either homosexuals, the effeminate, or male prostitutes; "cursing" is forbidden)

Now, let's take the word "arsenokoitai," and look at how it is translated not only in different versions, but in different ways in the same version:

KJV:
Corinthians:abusers of themselves with mankind
Timothy: them that defile themselves with mankind


RSV:
Corinthians: sexual perverts
Timothy: sodomites

NIV:
Corinthians: homosexual offenders
Timothy: perverts

Luther:
Corinthians: Knabenschaender (child abusers)
Timothy: child abusers

I hope you can see what I mean, now, about translation; certain translations differ not only in mere wording, but actually in the functional meaning of the words used. "Homosexual," "Pervert," and "child abuser" can all mean very different things. Perversion is largely subjective and may or may not include homosexuality, as understood by any given individual. Child abuser isn't even necessarily sexual, and certainly could also refer to heterosexual child abuse or even simply non-sexual child abuse. The translations are functionally different. Unless God has different rules depending on which translation one happens to read, some of them must be in error.

 

[TexUs]

Good points, De... I think these kind of things are why that open bible translation group (I haven't heard of that in awhile, how are they coming along) was seeking to translate it... As you can see it's easier for a more liberal translator (which is what most of them are) to distort the words a bit for their liking.

This is also why, folks, it's important to take a look at the original text from time to time. Although there are some that think the original text is the tool of satan because it doesn't support their theories

 

[deprofundis]

Well, the problem is that there isn't necessarily one "right" translation which does not distort the meaning of the word. Its meaning in the Greek lexicon is largely ambiguous, as well, since it was not an existing Greek word, I recall that its later uses carried a wide variety of meanings, and determining a definition from context is highly subjective, though translation without context is generally ill-advised. Language is necessarily possessed of a number of ambiguities, which makes it hard to argue any form of linguistic communication is necessarily "perfect," especially communication across times and cultures. While God can obviously communicate with all people and in any language, people, unfortunately, do not have this gift and so their record of his word is susceptible to their own fallibility. This is why prayer and asking the Lord for guidance are still so important; there's not necessarily just one meaning to take from the bible, because it is written and proliferated by humans. Of course, it is His Word and His Truth, but there is a filter of human fallibility between His Word and our page.

 

[Anastacia]

I think Scripture itself, as written, is not contradictory. I do agree with OP's assessment that it's a conditional statement.



Now, let's be clear about the "variances of languages" that was brought up...
People try to make the argument like it was Greek -> Latin -> German -> Dutch -> English
In reality, it's Greek -> English.

I WILL agree, however, with certain errors in the copying of the actual Greek. For example...
We have all heard of the "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle" story.
In reality there are two very similar words at work: kamilos and kamelos:

As you can see, these words are almost identical, and you can imagine how a scribe early on could have made an errant brush stroke in recording these words.
Rope through an eye of a needle would've made much more sense. Instead, people today try to come up with some nonsense about camel's passing through the "eye of the needle" gate or some ridiculous notion. But looking at this, rope through a needle makes much more sense.

The former is a rope, the latter is a camel. Perhaps an early scribal error led to the confusing passage we have today.

I am not trying to be offensive, but I do not think that the two similar words are too hard to get right. Nor do I think that saying rope instead of camel changes the overall meaning of what Jesus was teaching.

 

[Anastacia]

Actually, you did not ask for specifics; if you had, I would gladly have given them. Instead, you told me you "usually jump all over" people for making that statement (which "lies there like a dead dog") and told me you wondered about my Spiritual Condition. So I really don't see how I was rude, either, but my apologies if I came off as such.

Anyhow, for a specific example, let's look at Corinthians 6:9-10.

NASB: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."

KJV: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,[sup] [/sup]Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
(Note that "homosexuals" is changed into "abusers of themselves with mankind")

New Living Translation: "Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God."
(Note that "effeminate" is changed to "male prostitute" -- that's quite a big difference, if you ask me)

Worldwide English: "Do you not know that bad people will have no part in the kingdom where God rules? Do not be fooled. There are some people who will not have part in that place. They are those who commit adultery of any kind, those who have idols, or steal, or are always wanting more, or talk wrong things about people, or drink plenty of strong drink, or take things by force, or curse."
(Huh, no mention of either homosexuals, the effeminate, or male prostitutes; "cursing" is forbidden)

Now, let's take the word "arsenokoitai," and look at how it is translated not only in different versions, but in different ways in the same version:

KJV:
Corinthians:abusers of themselves with mankind
Timothy: them that defile themselves with mankind


RSV:
Corinthians: sexual perverts
Timothy: sodomites

NIV:
Corinthians: homosexual offenders
Timothy: perverts

Luther:
Corinthians: Knabenschaender (child abusers)
Timothy: child abusers

I hope you can see what I mean, now, about translation; certain translations differ not only in mere wording, but actually in the functional meaning of the words used. "Homosexual," "Pervert," and "child abuser" can all mean very different things. Perversion is largely subjective and may or may not include homosexuality, as understood by any given individual. Child abuser isn't even necessarily sexual, and certainly could also refer to heterosexual child abuse or even simply non-sexual child abuse. The translations are functionally different. Unless God has different rules depending on which translation one happens to read, some of them must be in error.

We do not need to learn Koine Greek, Aramaic, nor Hebrew to have the kingdom of God revealed to us. We already have the Bible translated into English, and even translated in modern English. Constantly picking over the meaning of certain words...there may be no end. Even when these different English translations have the wording a little different here and there---it doesn't change the message. Unless you work for a Bible translation company.....arguing over words seems to cause distrust of God's word. Also, there seems to be an inclination towards being more of an opponent to the kingdom, from those who engage in the arguing over certain words. Your post is proof of it. Whether the words "abusers of themselves with mankind" is used, or "them that defile themselves with mankind," "sexual perverts," "sodomites," "homosexual offenders," or "perverts"---a person who wants to live a life pleasing to the Lord will not engage in homosexual behavior of any kind, nor any sexual immorality, no matter if it is an exact word and meaning translated or not.
We know that Jesus says "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
Now I do have a preference to which translation I use, and it does seem that some Bible translations are more respectful in being as close a possible to the original words. But in saying that...that does not take away from what I said about arguing over words.

 

[deprofundis]

Well, the whole point is that several translations don't even necessarily include homosexual behavior as sexual immorality. "Child abuser" has no relation to homo- or heterosexuality, and "pervert" doesn't necessarily imply homosexuality. A few translations mention nothing about homosexuality being wrong. You can believe it is or it isn't, and back the claim up with scripture in either case, depending on the translation that you use. The different translations on the subject are sometimes functionally different not only in connotation, but even the denotation of the words used. I'm not advocating any one translation or another, merely noting that there are functional differences in the meaning of different translations.

 

[Anastacia]

Well, the whole point is that several translations don't even necessarily include homosexual behavior as sexual immorality. "Child abuser" has no relation to homo- or heterosexuality, and "pervert" doesn't necessarily imply homosexuality. A few translations mention nothing about homosexuality being wrong. You can believe it is or it isn't, and back the claim up with scripture in either case, depending on the translation that you use. The different translations on the subject are sometimes functionally different not only in connotation, but even the denotation of the words used. I'm not advocating any one translation or another, merely noting that there are functional differences in the meaning of different translations.

Once again you prove the point I was trying to make in my above post.

It doesn't matter if the word "homosexuality" is translated exactly from the original word.

Do you really think that God didn't make our body parts for their intended purpose? Stop thinking like deviant.

 

[deprofundis]

So, then, what you are saying is that, in your opinion, the translations which do not include homosexuality are in error? My point was not that either view is correct, but, rather, that for one to be correct, those which oppose it must be incorrect.

 

[Foreigner]

"Well, the whole point is that several translations don't even necessarily include homosexual behavior as sexual immorality." - De


-- Really? Several? Wow. Then it should be easy to provide examples of a number of them.

Your reply will of course be "I shouldn't have to do your work for you." My response is that I have looked and not seen "several" or even "a few" translations even imply that homosexuality is not sexually immoral.

When people continue to try to make claims such as yours they then start with, "What the ancient Greek actually says.." or "Originally, in Aramaic, the meaning actually described..."

Let's hear it.

 

[deprofundis]

"Well, the whole point is that several translations don't even necessarily include homosexual behavior as sexual immorality." - De


-- Really? Several? Wow. Then it should be easy to provide examples of a number of them.

Your reply will of course be "I shouldn't have to do your work for you." My response is that I have looked and not seen "several" or even "a few" translations even imply that homosexuality is not sexually immoral.

When people continue to try to make claims such as yours they then start with, "What the ancient Greek actually says.." or "Originally, in Aramaic, the meaning acually meant..." Priceless.

I have no problem with doing your work for you, actually. In fact, I already did so once in this thread. If you look up and read the post referenced by the one you quote, you will see the translations given of the passages. There are several versions with no direct mention of homosexual conduct at all when translating "arsenokoitai"; one which makes no mention of it whatsoever, one which translates the word as "child abuser," and a couple passages translated to the ambiguous "perverts." I'd imagine I can find more, given the huge number of available translations and the huge amount of variance between them. I recall a version (although it was, perhaps, in French?) which translated "arsenokoitai" to "slave trader" rather than anything to do with sex, at all.

That said, I think you missed the point of the post, entirely, which was not to advocate any one interpretation or the other of "arsenokoitai," merely to note that it has been translated in functionally different ways from edition to edition. Next time, please read the entire post, all the way through ("I'm not advocating any one translation or another, merely noting that there are functional differences in the meanings of different translations" should perhaps have offered a clue at my intention), and maybe even those which it references, before jumping down my throat about claims I never made. I didn't claim to know "what the ancient Greek actually says," just to know that there's a decent amount of disagreement on the subject.