Hebrews 10:23

Now that is one of the most hypocritical statements I've read on the BB.

 

That could probably said of modern 21st century English and most certainly of 17th century English. But FWIW, koine Greek being a "dead" language has this one attribute which is compatible with the Word of God: A "dead" language NEVER changes. In addition it is the original NT language of the Word of God who also never changes.

Of all the "dead" languages of the earth, koine Greek being the language of the NT has more grammars, lexicons, dictionaries, lexicons and books about its dynamic than any other language (apart from Hebrew or Latin perhaps) dating back to the 2nd century.

In reality koine Greek, Masoretic Hebrew and Latin, though dead are all very well documented.

And you are not swimming in a pool of the rationalization of a phantasy that a group of Anglo-Catholic translators could do no wrong? "God forbid".

HankD

 

Sorry, precepts disagrees with my KJB.
I have a KJB and in mine it says "hope"

Now which KJB is the perfect one.
I trust mine.

 

It is too bad you weren't the author ... then you could have said that. As it stands now, the author God actually inspired to write this said "hope." I think God is the one who knows what the better word is. I am not sure why you think you know better than God ... </font>[/QUOTE]I don't doubt God's word. If it say "faith," then it's faith.

 

But in my copy of God's word it says "hope" and it is a KJB. And I don't doubt that it should be "hope"

 

HB- God's Word says, elpis which is translated over 50 times in the N.T. as hope, and this is the only place the KJV has it as faith (1611,1769) (By the way, Tim, I have the 1873, too ) Remember, the Anglican, Baptist despisers were not prophets, but interpreters.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Precepts quoted:

The key AGAIN is context. If you follow th flow of the context in the passage you find that "faith" is the theme and leading up to Hebrews 11/ The Faith Chapter.

Hebrews 10:23
Another key is the Doctrine of Faith. I don't hold to a profession of "hope", but I do hold to my profession of my faith in Christ Jesus. The thingas I know about God are by faith, not hope.

I have a "know-so" salvation, not a "hope-so".
--------------------------------------------------


I agree with you Bro.Ricky! I also do not think that Jesus Christ is hopeful, rather than faithful.

This is the correct word for this verse:

Hebrews 10:23

Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)

Love in Jesus Christ our Faithful Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Romans 8:24
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

HankD

 

Hebrews 3:6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

Hebrews 6:11 And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end,

Hebrews 6:19 This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil,

Clearly, "hope" is an appropriate word with respect to our salvation.

This appears to be a tacit denial of verbal inspiration. After all, these KJVOs are saying the word God inspired really doesn't matter. We have a different one that is just as good.

 

Thanks Hank and larry for proving our point that hope and faith are synonymous, but "faith" is in harmonmy with the context of the passage.

So did yall split that camel in equal shares, or did one beat the other out and get the bigger half?

For by grace ye are saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast

 

Larry posts; "I am not looking for a mistake and I have no bias. Get out your concordance and look it up. You will find that the word in question is always translated "hope" in the KJV, except for this spot. I am not forcing the Greek to anything. The Greek has a word for faith and a word for hope. In this passage, the word for hope is used. That is how it should be translated. "


No bias, huh, Larry? Just like your example on the difference between "rejoicing" and "be proud"? And kakaomai can never mean to "rejoice", right?

Words in both Hebrew and Greek can have multiple meanings, and even the opposite meaning. The same Hebrew word can be translated as "to bless" and "to curse", and another one can mean "godly", or "merciful", or "holy" or even "reproach", and by the way, only once out of hundreds of times is this word translated as "reproach".

Pro. 14:34 "sin is a reproach to any people"

Say, Larry, why don't you look up in your lexicons or whatever the word yom, meaning Day in Hebrew. And then look up in your NASB concordance and list for us how they have translated this word.

One word, yet your NASB has translated this single word as "afternoon, age, all the years, always, battle, birthday, Chronicles, completely, course of time, daily, daily amount, day, daylight, each, entire, eternity, evening, ever, fate, first, forever, full, years, holiday, later, length, life, lifetime, live, long, midday, now, older, once, period, perpetually, present, recently, reigns, ripe age, short lived, so long, some time survived, time, today, usual, very old, when, whenever, while, whole, yesterday."

Can you find all these in your lexicons, Larry?

Since you have no infallible Bible and I do, I will trust what God gave us in the Holy Bible (also known as the King James Bible).

I certainly would not rely on your opinions and "unbiased" scholarship as my guide.

Have a good Day, year, eternity, present, now, evening, holiday, Chronicles etc.


Will Kinney


.

 

None of which is the issue ... The issue is simply this: What word did God use? He used the word "elpis" which means hope and he did not give you or the KJV translators the authority to change his word.

You are blatantly inconsistent. You cry with a loud mouth when the NIV "changes" the word but you accept it and defend it when the KJV does. You have no allegiance to the word of God. You have allegiance to the KJV and you will defend it at all costs, even when it is not what God said.

 

Mr. Kinney has a habit of doing that, Pastor Larry. he defends every KJV reading, right or wrong. He practices a double standard, blasting a modern version far having a certain reading, but defending the KJV when a similar reading is found in it.

He recently made an elaborate defense of the reading "Easter" in the KJV's Acts 12:4, despite the undisputable fact that this rendering is far from absolutely right, and that the KJV renders the Greek wird 'pascha' as "Passover" everywhere else it occurs in the Greek mss.

Mr. Kinney has yet to get past the BASICS. BY WHOSE AUTHORITY does he believe the KJVO myth, and by whose authority does he tell us WE should be KJVO?

 

Will,

I realize this is a long post and I am not under the impression that you care enough about truth to read it all. But I post it to show that your opinion is neither well based in fact nor is it true. You have shown time and time again that truth is not high on your priority list. You are more interested in spewing your venom about the word of God then you are in finding out what the truth actually is. I still hold out hope for the day when the word of God will become more important to you than that. In the meantime, I will take a few minutes to post this.

It is interesting there you were arguing against the NASB translating the word for what it means. Here you are defending the KJV for not translating the word for what it means. How can you not laugh at yourself? Are you playing the devil's advocate here or do you seriously believe this??

No kidding ... that is neither new nor unusual. "Elpis" simply doesn't happen to be one of those words. Surely even you know that not all words have the same breadth of semantic domain.

I don't have a NASB concordance. When I use a concordance, I use the Greek and Hebrews concordances.

But since you mentioned it, here are the definitions of "YOM" from BDB (the standard OT Hebrew Lexicon): (The strange looking "words" are the Hebrew characters that are not set up in my IE browser. But you can see enough to examine the definition that the Hebrew gives for YOM:

~Ay noun common masculine singular
B3886 ~Ay n.m. day -- 1. day, opp. night. 2. Day as division of time: a. working-day. b. ~Ay %r,D, a day's journey; without $r,D, etc., ~ymiy" tv,lv. three days, etc. c. to denote duration of various acts or states: seven days; forty days; 150 days. d. day as defined by evening and morning. e. day of month (c. num. ordin.). f. ~Ay defined by subst., inf., or other cl.: cstr. gl,V,h; ~Ay = the snowy day; so, = time ytir'c' ~Ay d. of my distress; of day emphat. characterized by proph. and others; on the other hand 'yl !Acr' ~Ay a day of acceptableness to 'y; pl. sq. subst. g. particular days defined by n.pr.loc.: la,ry ~Ay i.e. of judgment, with implied restoration; h'b.GIh; ymey i.e. of the outrage at Gibeah. h. c. sf., thy, his, or their day, in sense of (1) day of disaster or death. i. specif. a holy day: tB'V;h; ~Ay the sabbath day (v. also tB'v; also of false gods, ~yli'B.h; ymey . 3. 'y ~Ay day of Yahweh, chiefly as time of his coming in judgment, involving often blessedness for righteous. 4. Pl. days of any one: a. = his life, his age; ~yBir; ~ymiy" long life; ~ymiY"B; aB' advanced in days = of advanced age; rarely sg. e.g. ~Ay-hveq. one hard of day, i.e. whose day (= life) was hard; of life as approaching its end. b. (in) the days of (i.e. life-time, reign, or activity of). 5. Days: a. indef.: ~ydIx'a ~ymiy" some days, a few days. b. of a long time, ~ynIv' hz Aa ~ymiy" hz these days or these years; ~yIm;yO Aa ~ymiy" Aa vd,xo Aa whether two days or a month or days (an indefinitely long period); ~yBir; ~ymiy" many days. c. days of old, former or ancient times (esp. of early period of Isr. hist.): ~l'A tAmy (poem); coming days ~yaiB'h; ~ymiY"h;; coming time !Arxa; ~Ay. 6. ~Ay = time; a. vividly in gen. sense (v. also 5 supr.): time of harvest; usu. ymey ; proper time for paying wages; time of parturition. b. appos. to other expr. of time: ~ymiy" vd,xo a month of time (lit. a month, time). c. pl. in specific sense, appar. = year, lit. ~ymiy"; hm'ymiy" ~ymiY"mi = from year to year, yearly; distrib.; ~ymiY"mi ~ymiy"l. yhiy w: and it came to pass at days from days (= after some days). 7. Phrases, without prep. and with, are: a. (1) ~AYh; = today; opp. lAmT. yesterday; (2) rx'm' ~Ay (B.) = to-morrow; (6) ~Ay dx'a, no prep., emphat. = in one day; c. B.; for, during, one day (= some day). b. 'w: ~AYh; yhiy w: and the day came, that (or when). c. ~ymiy" hNEhi ~yaiB' lo! days are coming, when, etc. d. ~Ay in cstr. bef. vbs., both literally, the day of, and (oft.) in gen. sense = the time of (forcible and pregn., representing the act vividly as that of a single day): (1) bef. inf., (a) sg. without prep. (2) pl. cstr. bef. inf.; (3) sg. cstr. c. prep. bef. finite vb. in pf.; (4) sg. cstr. bef. impf; (5) pl. cstr. bef. pf.; (6) pl. cstr. bef. impf.; (7) ~AYmi cstr. bef. rel. cl.: ~AYmi rv,a] since the day when (= as long as); (8) pl. cstr. bef. rel. cl. rv,a] ymey -lK' as long as. e. (1) ~Ay ~Ay day by day; ~Ay-la, ~AYmi from day to day; ~AyB. ~AyK. as daily = according to daily habit; (2) ~Ayl. ~AYmi is in phr. of casting lots for one day after another; (v. 6 c); (3) of daily duties, observances, etc.: AmAyB. ~Ay rb;D each day's affair in its day. f. ~ymiY"h;-lK' = always, continually. g. additional phr. c. B. = on a particular day: ~Ay-lk'B. every day; aWhh; ~AYB; of definite time in past (v. also 3 supr.); aWhh; ~AYB of time defined in subsequent context, at that time, i.e. at the particular time of the foll. incident (= at a certain time, on one particular day; also of future; and very oft. in proph., as formula in describing what is to come at time of future blessing, retribution, etc.; of past; of future. h. c. K. : ~AYK; as or like the day; ~AyK. as at the day of; ~ymiT' ~AyK. about a whole day; ~AYK; lit. at (about) to-day = now (v. K.); ~AYK; = at once, first of all; oft. c. adj. pron. to point out agreement of result with promise or prediction, hZ h; ~AYK. as it is at this day; so hZ h; ~AYh;K.; in this phr. = on this particular day (when the incident to be narrated occurred). i. c. l. : ~Ayl. on, at (lit. with reference to); ~Ayl; against i.e. in expectation of; ymiWq ~Ayl. alm. = until; ~Ay ynEp.li before to-day; late phr. are ~ymiY"mi ~ymiy"l. = in the course of time; ~yBir; ~ymiy"l. at (the end of) many days; ~AYl; = for every day, daily; ~AYl; in exclam. 'Yl; Hh' alas for the day! j. c. !mi : ~AYmi since the day (time) of (or when); ~AYmi = from to-day, from this day forth; ~AYh;-d; hZ h; until now; ~yBir; ~ymiY"mi after many days; ~ymiY:mi after a time. k. c. !mil. (v. l. ad fin.); twice sq. inf. appos.; ymeymil. : ~d,q, '~l since the days of old = long ago. l. ~wy (h) d; : ~AYh;-dy: until to-day, denoting esp. permanence of a name or situation, or of result of an event; more often hZ h; ~AYh;-d; until this day. m. once bAj ~Ay-l; upon a good day, i.e. a day of social cheerfulness, feasting, rejoicing (c. rare l[; temp., v. bAj adj.). (pg 398)

Probably, if you wanted to take time to look. The NASB is universally recognized as the most literal translation currently available. It is literal to the point of being stiff and wooden.

Since you are into lexicons, let's look at elpis:

Here if Fribergs: 9159 evlpi,j, i,doj, h` hope; (1) as an expected and awaited good hope, expectation, prospect (AC 27.20); (2) as hopeful confidence in a trustworthy person hope (1TH 2.19); (3) as expectation of a divinely provided future (the) hope (CO 1.27); (4) as a Christian attitude of patient waiting, along with pi,stij and avga,ph hope (1C 13.13); (5) in combination with prepositions: evpv evlpi,di in (the) expectation of something (RO 5.2); parv evlpi,da contrary to (all) expectation (RO 4.18)

UBS (shorter BAGD): evlpi,j , i,doj f hope ( par/ evÅ evp/ evÅ hoping against hope Ro 4.18); ground or basis of hope; what is hoped for

Louw-Nida: 25.59 evlpi,zw ; evlpi,j, i,doj f: to look forward with confidence to that which is good and beneficial - 'to hope, to hope for, hope.' evlpi,zw: h`mei/j de. hvlpi,zomen o[ti auvto,j evstin o` me,llwn lutrou/sqai to.n VIsrah,l 'and we had hoped that he would be the one who was going to redeem Israel' Lk 24.21; o[ti hvlpi,kamen evpi. qew|/ zw/nti 'because we have placed our hope in the living God' 1 Tm 4.10. evlpi,j: peri. evlpi,doj kai. avnasta,sewj nekrw/n evgw. kri,nomai 'I am on trial (here) because I hope that the dead will rise to life' Ac 23.6; i[na dia. th/j u`pomonh/j kai. dia. th/j paraklh,sewj tw/n grafw/n th.n evlpi,da e;cwmen 'in order that through patience and encouragement given by the Scriptures we might have hope' Ro 15.4.

Liddell Scott: evlpi,j, i,doj( h`, (e;lpw) hope, expectation, Od.;in pl., pollw/n r`ageisw/n evlpi,dwn after the wreck of many hopes, Aesch.;-with gen. both of subject and object, Peloponnhsi,wn th.n evlpi,da tou/ nautikou/ the hope of the P. in their navy, Thuc.
2. the object of hope, a hope, VOre,sthj( evlpi.j do,mwn Aesch.

Thayer's: 1780 evlpi,j
evlpi,j (sometimes written evlpi,j; so WH in Rom. 8:20; Tdf. in Acts 2:26; see (in 2 below, and) the references under the word avfeidon), evlpi,doj, h` (e;lpw to make to hope), the Septuagint for xj;B, and xj;b.mi, trust; hs,x.m; that in which one confides or to which he flees for refuge; hw"q.Ti expectation, hope; in the classics a vox media, i. e. expectation whether of good or of ill;

1. rarely in a bad sense, expectation of evil, fear; as, h` tw/n kakw/n evlpi,j, Lucian, Tyrannic. c. 3; tou/ fobou/ evlpi,j, Thucydides 7, 61; kakh/| evlpi,j, Plato, rep. 1, p. 330 e. (cf. legg. 1, p. 644 c. at the end); ponhra, evlpi,j Isa. 28:19, the Septuagint

2. much more frequent in the classics, and always in the N. T., in a good sense: expectation of good, hope; and in the Christian sense, joyful and confident expectation of eternal salvation: Acts 23:6; 26:7; Rom. 5:4f; 12:12; 15:13; 1 Cor. 13:13; 1 Pet. 1:3; 3:15; avgaqh, evlpi,j (often in secular authors, as Plato, Phaedo 67 c.; plural evlpi,dej avgaqai,, legg. 1, p. 649 b.; Xenophon, Ages. 1, 27), 2 Thess. 2:16; evlpi,j blepome,nh, hope whose object is seen, Rom. 8:24; o` Qeo,j th/j evlpi,doj, God, the author of hope, Rom. 15:13; h` plhroqoria th/j evlpi,doj, fullness, i. e. certainty and strength of hope, Heb. 6:11; h` o`mologi,a th/j evlpi,doj, the confession of those things which we hope for, Heb. 10:23; to, kau,chma th/j evlpi,doj hope wherein we glory, Heb. 3:6; evpeisagwgh, krei,ttonoj evlpi,doj, the bringing in of a better hope, Heb. 7:19; evlpi,j with the genitive of the subjunctive, Acts 28:20; 2 Cor. 1:7 (6); Phil. 1:20; with the genitive of the object, Acts 27:20; Rom. 5:2; 1 Cor. 9:10; 1 Thess. 5:8; Titus 3:7; with the genitive of the thing on which the hope depends, h` evlpi,j th/j evrgasi,aj auvtw/n, Acts 16:19; th/j klh,sewj, Eph. 1:18; 4:4; tou/ euvaggeli,ou, Col. 1:23; with the genitive of the person in whom hope is reposed, 1 Thess. 1:3 (cf. Buttmann, 155 (136)). evpV (or evfV -- so Acts 2:26 L T; Rom. 4:18 L; 8:20 (21) T WH; cf. Scrivener, Introduction, etc., p. 565; (but see above, at the beginning)) evlpi,di, relying on hope, having hope, in hope (Euripides, Herc. fur. 804; Diodorus Siculus 13, 21; evpV evlpi,di avgaqh,, Xenophon, mem. 2, 1, 187 (Winer's Grammar, 394 (368), cf. 425 (396); Buttmann, 337 (290)): Acts 2:26 (of a return to life); Rom. 4:18; with the genitive of the thing hoped for added: zwh/j aivwni,ou, Titus 1:2; tou/ mete,cein, 1 Cor. 9:10 (G L T Tr WH); in hope, followed by o[ti, Rom. 8:20 (21) (but Tdf. reads dio,ti); on account of the hope, for the hope (Buttmann, 165 (144)), with the genitive of the thing on which the hope rests, Acts 26:6. parV evlpi,da, beyond, against, hope (Winer's Grammar, 404 (377)): Rom. 4:18 (i. e. where the laws of nature left no room for hope). e;cein evlpi,da (often in Greek writings): Rom. 15:4; 2 Cor. 3:12; with an infinitive belonging to the person hoping, 2 Cor. 10:15; evlpi,da e;cein eivj (Tdf. pro,j) Qeo,n, followed by an accusative with an infinitive Acts 24:15 (eivj Cristo,n e;cein, ta,j evlpi,daj, Acta Thomae sec. 28; (th,n evlpi,da eivj to,n VIhsou/n evn tw/| pneu,mati e;contej, the Epistle of Barnabas 11, 11)); evpi, with the dative of person 1 John 3:3; evlpi,da mh, e;contej (of the heathen) having no hope (of salvation), Eph. 2:12; 1 Thess. 4:13; h; evlpi,j evstin eivj Qeo,n, directed unto God, 1 Pet. 1:21. By metonymy, it denotes a. the author of hope, or he who is its foundation, (often so in Greek authors, as Aeschylus choëph. 776; Thucydides 3, 57; (cf. Ignatius ad Eph. 21, 2; ad Magn. 11 at the end; ad Philad. 11, 2; ad Trall. inscr. and 2, 2, etc.)): 1 Tim. 1:1; 1 Thess. 2:19; with the genitive of object added, th/j do,xhj, Col. 1:27. b. the thing hoped for: prosde,cesqai th,n makari,an evlpi,da, Titus 2:13; evlpi,da dikaiosu,nhj avpekde,cesqai, the thing hoped for, which is righteousness (cf. Meyer edition Sieffert at the passage), Gal. 5:5 (prosdokw/n ta,j u`po, Qeou/ evlpi,daj, 2 Macc. 7:14); dia, evlpi,da th,n avpokeime,nhn evn toi/j ouvranoi/j, Col. 1:5; krath/sai th/j prokeime,nhj evlpi,doj, Heb. 6:18 (cf. Bleek at the passage). -- Zöckler, De vi ac notlone vocis evlpi,j in N. T. Gissae 1856.*

If you get out your BAGD, you will find that it takes about 2 columns in that volume. And all of these definitions tell us the same thing: Elpis means hope. Now tell us again why you think it is okay to change what God said. I don't think it is okay to change it, even if the KJV does say it.

That is an out and out lie. You know it and you should be embarrassed by your disregard for the truth. If you do not tell the truth about little things like this, how will you expect credibility in bigger things like the Scriptures?

So will I. Except you like to change what God said in favor of what 17th century anglican translators said. I don't share that freedom. I have too high a view of God's word for that.

Judging from your posts, you are in no way qualified to determine what scholarship is. Your posts are filled with errors of both fact and logic. I am certainly glad that you would no rely on me. That would call into question my credibility.

 

Then you have a counterfeit.

 

None of which is the issue ... The issue is simply this: What word did God use? He used the word "elpis" which means hope and he did not give you or the KJV translators the authority to change his word.

You are blatantly inconsistent. You cry with a loud mouth when the NIV "changes" the word but you accept it and defend it when the KJV does. You have no allegiance to the word of God. You have allegiance to the KJV and you will defend it at all costs, even when it is not what God said. </font>[/QUOTE]You say God didn't give them the "authority" to translate "elpis" as "faith", but who is it that gave you this authority over anyone who with a rational mind can see BTSOAD that "faith fits the context PERFECVTLY?

You say HARMONY is not the issue, I OBJECT! The LORD is the God of all peace. His children are known as His by their peacemaking practices, the combined effort of God's Gospel and the Christian results in PERFECT HARMONY.

My allegiance is to God and His Word, which just so happens to be the Preserved, Inerrant, Inspired, Infallible, Holy Bible, also known to all as the AV 1611 KJB.

The total objection to mv's is the disharmony they introduce that is direct contradiction to the Harmony of the Bible. Also for everyone to note, Larry again attacks the Word of God in this remark, "You have no allegiance to the word of God. You have allegiance to the KJV and you will defend it at all costs, even when it is not what God said."

SERPENT! SERPENT! SERPENT ALERT!!! BEWARE! BEWARE! DECEPTION IS IS IN THE MIDST! GET BACK TO YOUR AV 1611 KJB AND REFUTE THE EVIL WORKS OF DARKNESS!!!

I believe the error of the Greek "enthusiast" to be that he cannot recognize due to his bias that "elpis" and "pistis" are congruent in meaning. I just wonder if the "G E" can come to terms and see there might be a Greek word he's overlooked that may be understood as "elpistis"? "Elpistis"/ hope and faith combined and to mean the same excat thing. But why, they already do mean the same, it is just the word "faith" fits the context PERFECTLTY!

 

As has been very clearly shown that while biblical "hope" elpis is related to faith pistis (it is the assured expectation of the promise of God coming out of biblical faith) it is NOT the same as faith and does not have an exact alignment in meaning with the modern version of the word hope.

This could be a give and take exchange if we could get past the emotion.

Brother Will in another thread has shown us some inconsistencies between Aleph and B which have shown up in some MVs.

Some of these inconsistencies are based upon Aleph and B alone over against the Majority text, Itala, Latin and Fathers witnesses.

I am sure some MV supporters would be willing to say in at least some of these cases the Traditional reading is the better one.

But to say that the KJV translators were always and totally correct gives to them a form of "re-inspiration" from the Spirit of God. Did He do that for the Vulgate translator?

Roby keeps asking "by what authority?"

The only answer which qualifies is: By the Authority of King James the 1611 titular head of the Church of England (founded by Henry 8th so he could get a divorce from his wife, whose head he later had lopped off).

Which Church later persecuted and killed Christians of like faith as ours.

Which Church to this day adheres to several heresies (from a Baptist point of view).

Even without these anomalies it seems unlikely that there can be a "God-breathed" translation since the translation does not flow through the original prophet or apostle.

In my view Inspiration requires not only the original autograph but the original vessel through whom it flowed in his original language.

If Paul himself made a translation of one of his own epistles then you might have a case.

HankD

 

God gave the authority when he inspired "elpsi" rather than "pistis." The issue is not what "fits the context perfectly." With that rational, we can change a great many things in Scripture. We are committed to the words that God inspired, not what might fit the context perfectly.

None of which has anything to do with verbal inspiration. I believe God inspired what he wanted us to have.

You have yet to substantiate even one contradiction. Which is not the point anyway. HOw many times do we have to say that the point is What did God inspired?