Originally posted by twhitehead
And what is wrong with the imaginary one in my head (I actually stated that that was more or less what it was, though I could easily have written it down and labeled it and placed it on my shelf).
[b]For our purposes, just use the regular one you see.
We started down that road and your first defense was to claim it was not the "actual Bible". Wh ess you have some circular clause that if contradictions exist then it is not "the Bible".[/b]
And what is wrong with the imaginary one in my head
Two things. For one, we won't know what it says until after you tell us (subjectivity); and for two, it is complete subjected to whatever direction your mind chooses to wander (double subjectivity).
Juxtaposed with such a proposition, we have the Bible. While we do not have the original autographs of each of the 66 books/letters, what we do have on hand in various parts of the world has weathered the intense scrutiny of a plethora of investigations... and remains intact with integrity.
Is it your claim that all copies and translations of the Bible are free from contradiciton?
Absolutely not. There are some absurdly deplorable examples of scholarship out there. But the question is, how would we know such a thing? We have the manuscripts upon which these versions are based! It's a relatively simple proposition to verify any part or particle of any given translation in the world.
However, that being said, it is highly unlikely that this is your issue, since we can confidently assume that your beef is not with the contrast you have found between some random version and the manuscripts upon which the same claim to be based. It goes without saying that the likelihood that you have ever actually studied any of the manuscripts in our possession--- let alone in the three original languages--- is much, much smaller than slim.
Your problem is with the contradictions (so-claimed) in the Joe Sixpack version available at any bookstore or in the nightstands of motels throughout North America.
Now that we have that out of the way, why don't you get to the supposed contradictions, instead of playing word and concept games of deconstruction and/or hide-the-meaning?