Are There Errors in the Bible?

Criteria Paul.

Nehemiah and Ezra possibly had two ways of determing "jewishness" depending upon the task at hand and/or the reason and authorization for the count.

Some were possibly mixed blood. Jewish converts had to be circumcized and mikvah'd but they were still considered Jews for temple/worship attendance which could be Ezra's (a priest) criteria.

Nehemiah being a "ruler" was only interested in Jews of proven bloodlines.

BTW, this difference still exists between Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.

http://www.orthohelp.com/geneal/differ.HTM

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]You link provided a nice discussion on naming conventions and how names are chosen and used. It did not discuss the issue of tracing lineages back and choosing alternate lineages for alternate purposes, as you describe for a solution to the numbering problem between the two lists.

Do you have any legitimate reason to assume that Nehemiah and Ezra would count people differently?

 

I was merely saying that you could, in fact, "correct" the Hebrew or Greek texts as you wish and publish them, as you were wondering in your post asking why we don't just do that.

When anybody does a thing like that, it stands on its own merits as so and so's text. Thus we have the Nestle greek text, Wescott and Hort text, and so forth. That's all I was saying.

 

As I already said, they were different people, possibly with a different legitimate criteria. Ezra was a priest, Nehemiah a "ruler".

HankD

 

OK, this is the source of confusion.
I was not the one who was "wondering".

Go back and you will see that it was BWSmith

HankD

 

OK, you are right, the site does not go to deeply into the origin differences between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jewry. Some of the Sephardim claim descendancy back to King David.

The Ashkenazi are said by many to be the product of Hebrew proseltyzing of the Khazars.
This has been debated and I probably should have said Khazarian Jews rather than Ashkenazi though the connection has been made by some.

http://www.khazaria.com/

The point being that there are differing opinions as to "jewishness" which was a definite problem for Ezra and Nehemiah.

HankD

 

If anyone doubts the Word of God as 100% accurate , then you better doubt your salvation too. The Holy Spirit indwells true belivers, and convicts us of , sin , lies, and false doctrins, as well as Gods word in decerning it. If you are going to call God a lier then you need to search your soul , and seek salvation, and be warned Galatians 6:7 (KJV) Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

 

I don't think anyone doubt's the "Word of God" as 100% accurate. It is what you define as the "Word of God" is the question. Personally I don't believe that any translation is inspired (including the KJV0), and thus are prone to error. In any translation meaning is lost in the translation, especially in idioms. Acts 12:4 where "pascha" is translated Easter is an obvious error.
But even that is insignificant.
The main thing is, we have an accurate translation in as much as no doctrine is affacted by minor changes or "errors" and we can trust our Bible as the Word of God.
DHK

 

refer to this site , and click on the errors in the King James Bible, too much info for me to type.

"errors in the King James Version"

 

This is an emotionally charged ariticle with many misleading statements. The above statement, for example is completely untrue.
#1. No translation compares itself to the KJV of 1611.
#2 These other MV never line up against the A.V. of 1611.
In one of these threads someone posted some verses right out of the 1611 KJV. I wasn't able to read them. I doubt that the author of the article in the link you provided would be able to read them either. You see, he doesn't use the KJV 1611, and neither do you. You use a revision of the 1611. It has been through a few editions since then, and if I am not mistaken the edition that you use is from 1769. But I could be wrong on that exact date. However, it was well after 1611. See if you can find a KJV still in 1611 English. See if you can read it.
I would challenge you to take these concerns to the versions forum where they are debated on a daily basis.