Isn't the inerrancy of the Scriptures the belief that the words written in the autographs were inerrant?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
is It A Baptist "Core Doctrine" that Bible "Inerrant/Infallible?"
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
Isn't the inerrancy of the Scriptures the belief that the words written in the autographs were inerrant?
Keep in mind "inspired infallible, etc" are not the same as inerrancy.
To define inerrancy one begins by postulating that the texts are without error. That is markedly different than inspired. It is also different than infallible.
Inspiration has to do with the nature and influence of God on the composition and authority of the original and present day texts.
Infallible means that the text of Scripture, though possibly having some minor difficulties in the consistent relating of events, facts, data, etc, is wholly consistent in its teaching and message. It is not the same standard of perfection as inerrancy.
Historic interpretation and theology on this matter is a mixed bag. A lot of it is due to the different views of inspiration held by patristic and medieval theologians (I don't consider Jewish theology as helpful in this area.) They don't articulate inerrancy as present day theology (and Baptists for the past 150 years) articulate it. What matters more to theologians prior to the inception of Baptists in the late 16th century, is authority rather than inerrancy.
Thus while I hold that inerrancy is an important doctrinal belief it doesn't qualify itself as a foundational/fundamental/core belief of theology. For something to be in that high level of a category it must be defined and held consistently since the early church period. Inerrancy simply doesn't meet that test.
I don't generally make a differentiation between texts and words. Words comprise texts and texts are comprised of words. (Not being snarky just wanted to answer directly.)
Tom Butler
New Member
I'm hesitant to give a carte blanche approval to all translations.
I will say that I have a real problem with The New World Translation.
And, while I consider paraphrases like The Living Bible useful, I would not call them inspired or infallible.
Last edited by a moderator:
stilllearning
Active Member
There are several Bible versions that are perfect;
One in Spanish, one in French, one in German, one in English, etc.
There would have to be, or God didn't keep His promise to us.
Tom Butler
New Member
I wish I could remember who said this:
Some people believe that the Bible is inspired in spots and that they are the ones inspired to spot the spots.
Some people believe that the Bible is inspired in spots and that they are the ones inspired to spot the spots.
I heard Jerry Vines say that more than once.
so before the Spanish, French, German, English translations were completed, I guess God had not kept his promise yet.
That's the problem when one insert kjv onlyism into the discussion. It's not biblical. It's not logical. The Bible is preserved with or without those translations. And none of those translations agree 100% with each other anyway.(ignoring the language differences). The ONLY way for it to be possible is to be guided by the Spirit, which would be double inspiration and...[I'll go ahead and snip my comment now.]
the truth is that the original writes of Scripture were divinely guided by the Spirit to pen down the Bible. Those words were perfect. We know that they are perserved, but that does not mean that there won't be textual variation. No where in Scripture does it teach such a thing. Hopefully, no one will try to pretend there are not textual variations in the manuscripts. Yet we still say that the Bible is preserved, which is true. The words have been preserved.
Last edited by a moderator:
stilllearning
Active Member
Hello jbh28
Please don’t try to derail this thread.
It’s not about the KJB, its about “the Bible”!
--------------------------------------------------
You said.....
You need to be careful, impugning God like that.
I trust Him and you should too.
I don’t know much about the Spanish, French or German Bibles, but the timing of the very first English Bible, seemed to be right on time.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said........
So you say;
Maybe you are fluent in Spanish, French and German; And maybe you have meticulously compared each of these Bibles.
Or.....maybe your just repeating what others have said.
In any case, you are attacking God and His Word.
And also, I NEVER BROUGHT UP the KJB, “you did”.
And I have repeatedly condemned double inspiration!
--------------------------------------------------
You also said.......
Please don’t try to find any defense for your statements, in Bible teachings:
Jesus said..........
Matthew 4:4
“But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”
et.al.
You either believe the Bible, or you don’t!
--------------------------------------------------
Finally you said........
Now, this is what this thread is all about.
You “say” that the Bible is preserved; and you “say” that the words have been preserved; But unless you can hold “one Bible” in your hand and say that this is God's preserved Word for me, than you are talking through your hat!
Because holding to more than one Bible to be God’s Word, in any given language, is a farce.
Because no two English Bibles are identical.
Please don’t try to derail this thread.
It’s not about the KJB, its about “the Bible”!
--------------------------------------------------
You said.....
You need to be careful, impugning God like that.
I trust Him and you should too.
I don’t know much about the Spanish, French or German Bibles, but the timing of the very first English Bible, seemed to be right on time.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said........
So you say;
Maybe you are fluent in Spanish, French and German; And maybe you have meticulously compared each of these Bibles.
Or.....maybe your just repeating what others have said.
In any case, you are attacking God and His Word.
And also, I NEVER BROUGHT UP the KJB, “you did”.
And I have repeatedly condemned double inspiration!
--------------------------------------------------
You also said.......
Please don’t try to find any defense for your statements, in Bible teachings:
Jesus said..........
Matthew 4:4
“But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”
et.al.
You either believe the Bible, or you don’t!
--------------------------------------------------
Finally you said........
Now, this is what this thread is all about.
You “say” that the Bible is preserved; and you “say” that the words have been preserved; But unless you can hold “one Bible” in your hand and say that this is God's preserved Word for me, than you are talking through your hat!
Because holding to more than one Bible to be God’s Word, in any given language, is a farce.
Because no two English Bibles are identical.
You are the one that posted something. Please never accuse me of anything again. My post was about the inerrancy of the Bible. You chose to insert kjv onlyism into it.
I do. Please don't imply that I don't.
That's the ONLY way of a perfect translation.
Are you denying the variants in the manuscripts?
I do believe the Bible is true.
Which Bible before the "perfect English Bible"(which we all know you mean the KJV) was there before that one could hold in their hand?
This will be interesting. You will promote something but will never be able to back it up. Please name the perfect copy of the Bible before the perfect English copy, or admit that having one perfect intact copy of the Bible is not required for the words to be inerrant and preserved. (saying you don't know it is a cop out and admitting that you know you are wrong.
stilllearning
Active Member
As I already said, “the Bible is the Bible”, regardless of what language it is translated into.
The English language did not exist before the 1300's, but yet God’s people had His Word.
Even though there have been millions of born again believers that could not read, so Bible versions meant nothing to them.
--------------------------------------------------
I found this someplace on the internet and thought it was interesting......
In the course of time many versions (translations from the original language) of Scripture were made. These are just a few:
The Peshitta Version (AD 150)
The Old Latin Vulgate (AD 157)
The Italic Bible (AD 157)
The Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards)
The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177)
The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350)
The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400)
The Armenian Bible (AD 400) There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.
The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450)
The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535)
The Czech Bible (AD 1602)
The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606)
The Greek Orthodox Bible: Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church.
All the above mentioned Bibles and the vast majority (about 99%) of the 5200 extant New Testament MSS are in agreement with the text now known as Textus Receptus; the Text which underlies the Authorised King James Bible.
--------------------------------------------------
Once again, “THE BIBLE IS THE BIBLE”, and God has promised to preserve it for us.
And for anyone to say that “it has been lost” and it takes the work of scholars, to find it again for us or to tell us what it really is, is a lie!
Good!
Very good
So was the Bible perfect then? If so, your point about having a perfect translation as stated before is moot.
99% isn't perfect. We don not say "it has been lost." That's actually the "lie."
stilllearning
Active Member
Once again you miss the point.
Here was the quote.....
“All the above mentioned Bibles and the vast majority (about 99%) of the 5200 extant New Testament MSS are in agreement with the text now known as Textus Receptus; the Text which underlies the Authorised King James Bible.”
And all you did was zero in on the 99%.....
How typical.
--------------------------------------------------
If you aren’t saying that “it’s lost”, than WHERE IS IT?
I assume that you speak English; And if it’s not lost, than you have it.
Which Bible do you have in your hand, that is God’s preserved Word?
Still learning, please don't make comments to me. Don't accuse me of things. You are very unlearned on this subject and have no business telling me or anyone that we have we "miss the point."
Of course. You advocated perfect and 99%(more correctly 95%) isn't perfect. Further, there isn't one copy that is perfect.All manuscripts have errors in them. There are not 2 manuscripts that read alike.
In the available manuscripts and vast copies of the Bible we have today. The words have never been lost. Having the words preserved and a perfect copy in one volume of the bible are not the same thing
You didn't answer my question of course. English transitions are not perfect. Having a perfect translation isn't required for perfection of the words nor perservation of the words.
We have over 5600 NT manuscripts of the Bible. None agree 100% with the other. The KJV came from these manuscripts(though a much, much smaller amount of these). The question is whether there was a perfect copy of the Bible before 1600. If so, which was the perfect Bible in 1600. Let me know and We'll compare it to the KJV. If they disagree on one point, then your position is false. (which will be easy to prove).
Remember, words are inspired, not copies not translations. Words are preserved. manuscripts have variants(errors) in them, but we know that the original words are still here. they don't have to be put all in one particular copy to be preserved nor inerrant.
Please answer the bold
I don't think the problem is with versions, but the source texts that the versions are translated from. The KJV is translated from a different body of texts than modern versions. They both cannot be right because they are very different. Many of us choose the KJV source texts over the modern versions source texts. I think that's probably where Still learning is coming from.
So, we see that we have textual variants. One says that the TR is the best. good. I say the CT is best. Good. We both recognize that the words are preserved. We both recognize that the manuscripts have errors in them. Where we disagree is which words are the correct ones. Us disagreeing doesn't make the words "lost."
"different body of text." Not exactly. the modern versions put higher weight on the older manuscripts, but don't ignore the newer ones. It's not that they are totally separate, just different philosophy. (though the kjv translators didn't have access to all that we have today).
Stillearning is advocating a perfect translation is required for preservation, yet history nor the Bible nor fact nor anything can back that up.
stilllearning
Active Member
You asked.......
Here is what I mean by perfect.......
This is what the King James says in Acts 8:36-38
Acts 8:36-38
36 And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
And here is what the first English Bible(in 1382) says......
36 And the while thei wenten bi the weie, thei camen to a water. And the gelding seide, Lo! watir; who forbedith me to be
baptisid?
37 And Filip seide, If thou bileuest of al the herte, it is leueful. And he answeride, and seide, Y bileue that Jhesu Crist is the
sone of God.
38 And he comaundide the chare to stonde stille. And thei wenten doun bothe into the watir, Filip and the gelding, and Filip
baptiside hym.
------------------------
Now I consider these to be basically the same.
But here is what the NIV says..........
36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?”
38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.
Now you can see, why it’s so important that we have a Bible in our language, that we can read and study on our own.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
So since there is no Japanese translation from the TR God didn't keep His promise to the Japanese people? How does your definition of inerrency apply to the Japanese?
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, but is it "philip baptized him"(in modern spelling) or "he baptized him."
there's a difference. does it change meaning? No, but it's different.
Not sure how this even comes close to address my point. Are any words lost? Nope. Are there disagreements over if the words in verse 37 were added after Luke penned the book or if they were originally written by Luke? Sure.
So you have pointed out a textual variant. My point exactly. Some manuscripts have verse 37 some do not.
Two options
Words were added
1. No words are lost
2. words are still inerrant, manuscripts and translations are not
3. the words have been preserved.
Words were original
1. No words are lost
2. words are still inerrant, manuscripts and translations are not
3. the words have been preserved.
It's the words, not the manuscripts and especially not the translations that are preserved and inerrant.
As I figured, you could not post the perfect translation/copy of the Bible in perfect form before the KJV.