Can A Baptist Hold To A "Limited View" ON Biblical Inspiration?

I think most folks agree that if we had the original manuscripts, the original writings, they would be accurate. But do we know if the grammar would be perfect, according to our idea of grammar, or that place name spelling would be consistent among the differing authors? The short answer is no, but many make this assumption and berate those unwilling to "add to scripture" the assumptions of men. They say if we do not make the assumption it puts us on the slippery slope that leads to questioning the validity of the Bible. Which of couse is twaddle. What we must stick to is truth, warts and all.

 

Is it wrong to "idealize" something and present a clean, simplified version without rough spots found in the existing material? I say yes! Many of the doctrines that divide the body of Christ are based on over simplifications, unwarranted extrapolations, and generalized assertions that to not reflect all scripture. When these "problem texts" are brought up, they are nullified by the idealists who cling to the stylized version of their truth, rather than refashion a doctrine that reflects all scripture.

 

I think some of which your teachers are alluding to are the number discrepancies from the Kings to Chronicles.

 

FYI, the doctrines of infallibility or inerrancy (or even inspiration) aren't historically baptistic.

I know plenty of Baptists who disagree with them and are still Baptist. Being Baptist isn't about your view of inerrancy.

 

To which Baptist group are you referring? There are currently about 100 Baptist groups just in the US alone.

 

Yes, some Baptists hold to a functional or limited inerrancy/inspiration. I disagree with them, but they're out there. Pinnock eventually went to a nuanced inerrancy, based on the literature involved. Marshall believed inerrancy applied strictly to those texts that speak of salvation, etc., but not necessarily historical facts and depictions.

 

If God can and does choose to carry his redemptive message through fallen imperfect vessels like the prophets, apostles, and even us, why should we assume He couldn't or wouldn't do so through an imperfect book produced by those same imperfect vessels?

It seems to me the scripture is a testimony meant to lead us to the true perfect Word and thus was never meant to be perfect itself...only sufficient to lead us to the One who IS!

 

Skandelon, would you reject then the doctrine of natural/full inerrancy and/or verbal plenary/organic inspiration? Just curious.

 

I'm more interested in what the Bible itself wants me to believe about it, not whether I'm a Baptist or not.

Our denominational affiliations are secondary. It's time to get this right.

 

I has been popular to claim that the Word of God in the original autographs was inerrant. But how do we know that? The Bible says it is trustworth, reliable and so forth. Who invented the doctrine of inerrance and what problem were they trying to address? To make a claim on either side, inerrant or has flaws which do not detract from its message of truth, seems based on conjecture to me.

And are we talking about the original writings by the inspired authors, or are we including its transmission and claiming the copists made no errors nor added any "helpful" clarifications.

 

I'd have to look at an actual written definition or discription of each before giving a conclusive answer, but I will say I don't like making claims of scripture that it doesn't make for itself.

I like to call it "god-breathed" "profitable for teaching, correcting and training," etc.

 

Many Christians seem to forget that God promised to preserve His word and He has. Why worry about what was in the original manuscripts when we have God's promise?

 

Does this promise (you did not provide a reference for others to check) include perfect error free preservation? Or only that it will be preserved such that it remains "trustworthy, profitable, and otherwise sufficient for God's purpose?

My view is that all modern translations are shot through with liberal translations, copiest additions, and all manner of corruptions. But they are the Word of God, the power of God for salvation. So I think we should do our best to strip away the uninspired corruptions, so I rely on the CT translations and the NASB 1995 as the least corrupted text I can read and hopefully understand.

 

These modern bible versions come from the Alexandrian text. If you do the research you will see why this is a problem. Also, these versions are copyrighted. The KJV is not.

Can you show me the errors in the KJB?

 

"Modern" does not of necessity mean "based on the Alexandrian text". The preface to the NKJV, for example, includes this:

Since the latter nineteenth century the theory has been held by some scholars that the traditional text of the New Testament had been officially edited by the fourth-century church. Recentstudies have caused significant changes in their view, and a growing number of scholars now regard the Received Text as far more reliable than previously thought.....The New King James Version has been based on this Received Text, thus perpetuating the tradition begun by William Tyndale in 1525 and continued by the 1611 translators in rendering the Authorized Version.
​

Regarding the matter of copyright, laws concerning this vary from country to country, and although your country's laws may not recognise it, the KJV is indeed copyright - Crown Copyright.

Crown copyright applies to all works produced by the British Government, subject to the condition that the qualification "Where a work is made by Her Majesty or by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his duties" is met. The Crown can also have copyrights assigned to it. There is also a small class of materials where the Crown claims the right to control reproduction outside normal copyright law due to Letters Patent issued under the royal prerogative. This material includes the King James Bible, and the Book of Common Prayer.
​

Anyway, what difference does the fact that any document is copyright make to the truth (or otherwise) of the words which make up that document?

You ask if anyone can show you any errors in the KJV. Well, over the past 400 years, many words in the English language have changed, some quite drastically, in meaning. Here are some examples, with the KJV word in red, the usual modern meaning of that word in blue, and the actual meaning of the original Greek or Hebrew word in purple. (I'm not expert in either Greek or Hebrew, so I would be glad for any corrections from people who do know those languages). Below each example, I have pasted a bible verse where the word is used:

prevent stop something from happening go before

"For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep." (1Th 4:15 AV)
​

carriage wheeled cart weapons, vessels, implements

"And David left his carriage in the hand of the keeper of the carriage, and ran into the army, and came and saluted his brethren." (1Sa 17:22 AV)
​

charity voluntary help to those in need love

"Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up," (1Co 13:4 AV)
​

meat flesh of animals used for food food

"And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?" (Lu 24:41 AV)
​

coasts borders between land and sea regions

"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" (Mt 16:13 AV)
​

Paul wasn't talking to the Christians at Thessalonica about living Christians somehow stopping those that had died from meeting their Saviour at His Second Coming. David didn't leave his wheeled vehicle with a parking attendant. 1 Corinthians 13.4 is not about raising money for "Guide Dogs for the Blind", or "The World Wildlife Fund". Jesus wasn't asking if His disciples had any joints of beef or lamb chops. Matthew didn't have his geography so wrong that he thought Caesarea Philippi was by the sea.

Of course I'm not suggesting that the godly 1611 translators believed such things; just that changes in the English language mean that words like "prevent", "coasts", carriage, "charity" and "meat" are no longer correct translations.

 

Can you tell me what modern versions are not based on the work of Westcott-Hort, thus coming from the Alexandrian text?

Changing a word from archaic or King James English does not mean the KJV has errors.