I did not admit the Bible contains factual errors. I did state that there have been errors - the term "factual" is yours. If you go back and look at what errors may exist in English translations - you will find primarily that they are grammatical/ and other errors that go back to the 1611 KJV, and even to that volume's predecessor.
Thus the reason I use more th an one translation plus a Greek parallel - to conpare for myself.
I believe that the Bible that is available today contains zero errors of fact or content. Any possible errors are strictly related to printing/typographical errors.
How do you support the global flood story? Do you rely strictly on belief, or do you try to find scientific confirmation?
I believe that the Bible that is available today contains zero errors of fact or content. Any possible errors are strictly related to printing/typographical errors.
Is a bat a bird? Or is that a "printing/typographical error"?