Talk:Biblical inerrancy

message: No discussion of inerrancy is complete without bringing up the fact that the Masoretic text (the basis of the Catholic and Lutheran bibles) and Septuagint (the basis of the Eastern Orthodox bibles) have mutually contradictory content. The most notable example of this is that the former states that the commandment not to bear false witness is #8, while the latter states that it is #9 - so that they don't even agree on their account to not bear false witness! The full extent of the disagreement may be seen in the following table Ten Commandments#Numbering. There is also disagreement between different versions on what the life spans of the patriarchs in Genesis were. For instance, the Masoretic version says Seth was born when Adam was 130, the Septuagint says it happened when Adam was 230. The full extent of the disagreement between the different versions may be seen here Genealogies of Genesis#Genesis_numbers. In all cases, clearly, somebody is in error. So, any argument posed for inerrancy must be weighed against the fact that somebody (and possibly everybody) is in error so that the argument clearly failed to hold for them; and must explain why or how the arguments for inerrancy should not fail to hold for everyone, given that it actually does fail to hold for at least all but one, by virtue of their errancy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1401:8806:222:69FF:FE4C:408B (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inerrancy in the face of disagreements between the Masoretic text, Septuagint and other versions of the Bible 

message: Expecting constancy in the use of words during many centuries and different regions is too much too ask. They did not have the Merriam Webster online dictionary to sync their meanings. Raped Dinah is still called a virgin in the Bible. I don't remember precisely is she was called an  or a , anyway the English translation is . tgeorgescu (talk)  00:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raped Dinah 

message: the Origen section may be incomplete, in 2012 was found in Bavaria, Germany a codices containing new homilies of the Psalms written or dictated by Origen in his time in Caesarea (Codex monacensis Graecus 314), in the homily of Psalm 77, he comments on the written errors, the lack of interpretation in contradictory passages, also and although it does not contribute to the article of the religious systematics of that time. 
I need to know if someone by will help me to write this information well, also to know the following sources are valid  Codex monacensis Graecus 314  https://alexpoulos.com/2019/08/28/text-criticism-and-biblical-authority-in-origens-homily-on-ps-77/| online text, if they are invalid help, I also inform that I do not speak English. thanks. Tuxzos22 (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origen of Alexandria 

message: This article is too convoluted, especially in the section "The Modern Protestant Discussion": one gets the impression that too many people wanted to include their preferred views, and quote their preferred authors. Can someone knowledgeable about modern Protestant discussions of the issue do something about this?
The section "Terms and Positions" also needs work. What are the last 3 paragraphs doing here? Are any of them worth keeping? (I would drop all three.) If some are worth keeping, where should they go in the article? Feedback please! MDJH (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have received no answer to my questions about the last 3 paragraphs of the section "Terms and Positions", I have removed two of the paragraphs. MDJH (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a mess of an article 

message: I am slowly editing the subsection on "Modern Catholic Discussion".  
The edits I did so far:
# Tagged some statements as needing citations.
# Added material from a secondary source on Proventissimus Deus.  I plan to delete the block quote from the Proventissimus Deus since in my opinion it is not necessary and its inclusion in the article might constitute original research, but I'd like to know the opinions of other editors first.
(UPDATE AS OF JUNE 12, 2023: I already deleted the block quotes from primary sources).   — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaivineOrodrim (talk • contribs) 12:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Subsection on "Modern Catholic Discussion"