Replies

>> Why on earth would I look first to the Far Eastern Bible College to "begin" my education?<<

I actually didn’t think you would. You see, your previous statement of “nearly identical inconsistencies in other books” would have been totally debunked by what you would have read and learned. I totally expected you not to go and learn that your contention that there are “inconsistencies” in other books of scripture is wrong.

BTW Your belief that the Catholic Church preserved the scriptures and then tell us that there are “inconsistencies” is rather contradictory to your belief in the inerrancy of the CC isn’t it? What’s the good of an “authority” if by your own admission it brings us “inconsistencies”? It’s apparent to me that the CC perpetuates error by your own admission.

Regarding the Apocrypha:

I found this interesting information in Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, page 511, column 1, point 9.

There are 12 reasons listed why the Apocryphal books are considered uninspired. Number 9 is where I'll start, because it seems the most interesting part of this discussion.

9. The Apocryphal books were NOT a part of the ancient versions of Scripture. They were FIRST ADDED AFTER 300 AD. The Laodicean Council in 363 AD rejected them as being UNINSPIRED, thus PROVING that by that time some were claiming INSPIRATION for them. (They FIRST APPEARED in the VATICAN VERSION of the 4th century. At the Council of Trent in 1546 AD, Catholics accepted 6 of these books as inspired and added them to their MODERN VERSIONS of Scripture. They are: Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees).

1546 AD. REALLY?

Now who on the RCC "Logic Train" will tell us if this correct?

"It’s apparent to me that the CC perpetuates error by your own admission."

The only thing I am admitting is bewilderment at a line of reasoning that begs others to accept as authoritative an obscure Singapore based source selected only because it corroborates your premise. As I have often said; the genius of the internet is that if one searches long enough one can always find and expert that agrees.

BTW Your belief that the Catholic Church preserved the scriptures and then tell us that there are “inconsistencies” is rather contradictory to your belief in the inerrancy of the CC isn’t it? What’s the good of an “authority” if by your own admission it brings us “inconsistencies”? It’s apparent to me that the CC perpetuates error by your own admission.

That is a VERY salient point! If the intent of Biblical scribes, translators and copiers was to have presented as "clean" and "error-free" product as they could, then why DID they leave in these presumed errors? Your link explains that quite well:

and do you not think they would have had enough sense to “patch up” such a glaring inconsistency if they really believed it was an error? (This perplexing question is actually a wonderful demonstration of the honesty of the translators of the Authorised, King James Version.)

It is to the credit of those who have passed down the Bible to us in our own langauges - those that actually DID - that they preserved the word of God as it was written and trusted the author to mean what he said and say what he meant. I trust the Bible because it is trustworthy.