God Does Not Have Bad Breath!

[John of Japan]

I'm putting this here because it's more about the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy rather than Bible Versions/Translations.

I'm basing the OP's statement on the Greek word for the "inspiration" of Scripture in 2 Tim. 3:16, which is theopneustos, literally "God-Breathed," as is well known. I believe that if God breathed it out (metaphorically, of course), then Scripture is perfect, therefore inerrant in the original manuscripts.

In his thread on inspiration placed in the Bible Translations forums, Archie the Preacher said this:

There is a big disagreement about whether there were 'any' errors in the autographs - the original documents of the Bible. It is a silly argument for at least one reason: There are no autographs to be studied. There is NO WAY to determine the matter. I rather suspect - more than suspect - the 'perfection' faction are merely modern day legalists who want to believe more than anyone else and therefore have a claim to more righteousness than others. It reminds me so much of the rabbis who wrote the Mishnah and Gemara and added so many regulations to the Mosiac Law. Remember the ones Jesus identified as " ... you experts in religious law as well! You load people down with burdens difficult to bear, yet you yourselves refuse to touch the burdens with even one of your fingers!" (Luke 11:46)

So I don't really care about the petty and legalistic self-justification argument of 'no errors of any kind'. It is the message that matters; and that is why the Bible can be translated and STILL be authentic, authoritative and the everlasting Word of God.

Frankly, I want to think there are many of us, the majority even, here on the BB who hold to inerrancy in the originals, thus this thread and the accompanying poll. So the main purpose of the poll is for information, but I'm sure people will fuss about it. :saint: I won't be able to post much at this time, with the weekend coming, but I will as I can. I just want to know what you think.

What say ye?

 

[convicted1]

The originals, the ones that were actually written by those who had the Spirit moving upon them to write, are w/o error. Now, the various translations, the KJV, NIV, NKJV, NASB, tNIV, RSV, NLT, et al, they were translated by men who weren't inspired, therefore errors could, and probably do, exist. TBS, there's enough food in any of the various translation that tells us how we are to live, act towards our neighbors, raise up our children, honor our Creator, etc.

 

[John of Japan]

The originals, the ones that were actually written by those who had the Spirit moving upon them to write, are w/o error. Now, the various translations, the KJV, NIV, NKJV, NASB, tNIV, RSV, NLT, et al, they were translated by men who weren't inspired, therefore errors could, and probably do, exist. TBS, there's enough food in any of the various translation that tells us how we are to live, act towards our neighbors, raise up our children, honor our Creator, etc.

I agree. Every good and faithful translation conveys God's revelation about life and eternal life, but there are no guarantees in Scripture for the perfection of translations.

 

[Rippon]

Every good and faithful translation conveys God's revelation about life and eternal life, but there are no guarantees in Scripture for the perfection of translations.

Indeed that's true.

BTW,I notice a new icon. When was the pic taken? Give us some background on it.

 

[John of Japan]

Indeed that's true.

BTW,I notice a new icon. When was the pic taken? Give us some background on it.

Thanks for asking! I had one on there for a short while that was me napping in Hawaii in 2011 on the way home from furlough. But then I was looking through some old photos and found this one of me breaking some concrete bricks in my karate outfit in about 1977 and thought I'd scan it and try it for awhile.

Never was good at that brick and board breaking, though. Some years later I chipped my elbow bone doing that. Good thing I never did go for breaking techniques with my head! :BangHead:

 

[evangelist6589]

I'm putting this here because it's more about the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy rather than Bible Versions/Translations.

I'm basing the OP's statement on the Greek word for the "inspiration" of Scripture in 2 Tim. 3:16, which is theopneustos, literally "God-Breathed," as is well known. I believe that if God breathed it out (metaphorically, of course), then Scripture is perfect, therefore inerrant in the original manuscripts.

In his thread on inspiration placed in the Bible Translations forums, Archie the Preacher said this:

Frankly, I want to think there are many of us, the majority even, here on the BB who hold to inerrancy in the originals, thus this thread and the accompanying poll. So the main purpose of the poll is for information, but I'm sure people will fuss about it. :saint: I won't be able to post much at this time, with the weekend coming, but I will as I can. I just want to know what you think.

What say ye?

Why did you not include the word infallibility? There are those that claim to believe in inerrancy as far as spiritual matters, but say the bible is not true in history and science. And there are those that claim that only the words of Christ are inspired but the rest is mans opinion. Watch out for those! So I would include both terms.

 

[evangelist6589]

The originals, the ones that were actually written by those who had the Spirit moving upon them to write, are w/o error. Now, the various translations, the KJV, NIV, NKJV, NASB, tNIV, RSV, NLT, et al, they were translated by men who weren't inspired, therefore errors could, and probably do, exist. TBS, there's enough food in any of the various translation that tells us how we are to live, act towards our neighbors, raise up our children, honor our Creator, etc.

Well said...

 

[evangelist6589]

I agree. Every good and faithful translation conveys God's revelation about life and eternal life, but there are no guarantees in Scripture for the perfection of translations.

Exactly. Especially different when you compare animal names.

Pro 30:28

(NIV) a lizard can be caught with the hand,
yet it is found in kings’ palaces.

(KJV) The spider taketh hold with her hands, and is in kings' palaces.

There are DOZENS of differences with animal names throughout the Bible.

 

[John of Japan]

Why did you not include the word infallibility? There are those that claim to believe in inerrancy as far as spiritual matters, but say the bible is not true in history and science. And there are those that claim that only the words of Christ are inspired but the rest is mans opinion. Watch out for those! So I would include both terms.

Good point. I just didn't think of it.

I remember reading somewhere (probably way back when the issue was big in the SBC) that inerrantists started using both words because the errantists would claim they believed in inerrancy just the way you described. To me, though, that's dishonest, since saying the Bible was inerrant would should naturally include in science and history, according to the meaning of the word.

 

[Revmitchell]

I'm putting this here because it's more about the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy rather than Bible Versions/Translations.

I'm basing the OP's statement on the Greek word for the "inspiration" of Scripture in 2 Tim. 3:16, which is theopneustos, literally "God-Breathed," as is well known. I believe that if God breathed it out (metaphorically, of course), then Scripture is perfect, therefore inerrant in the original manuscripts.

In his thread on inspiration placed in the Bible Translations forums, Archie the Preacher said this:

Frankly, I want to think there are many of us, the majority even, here on the BB who hold to inerrancy in the originals, thus this thread and the accompanying poll. So the main purpose of the poll is for information, but I'm sure people will fuss about it. :saint: I won't be able to post much at this time, with the weekend coming, but I will as I can. I just want to know what you think.

What say ye?

I say that is the first time I have ever heard that from anyone and I am quite surprised. Is it safe to assume that when God breathes something it is without error. You betchya!

 

[John of Japan]

I say that is the first time I have ever heard that from anyone and I am quite surprised. Is it safe to assume that when God breathes something it is without error. You betchya!

I think for anyone to try to refute this argument they'd have to do some twisting and turning. Let's see if anyone tries.

 

[evangelist6589]

Good point. I just didn't think of it.

I remember reading somewhere (probably way back when the issue was big in the SBC) that inerrantists started using both words because the errantists would claim they believed in inerrancy just the way you described. To me, though, that's dishonest, since saying the Bible was inerrant would should naturally include in science and history, according to the meaning of the word.

Indeed so. But watch out for what you read on the web on the doctrine as there are many falsehoods. I'd check out a good book on the doctrines. I am reading one by RC Sproul at this time.

Infallibility says the bible can never error in anyway, while inerrancy may put limits. For example if you scored a 100% on a test in this case you were inerrant but you are fallible and the next test you may get a C, so you are not infallible. In the same way those that believe only in inerrancy say the Bible is true in spiritual matters but not true in history and science, which then promotes their views of a local flood, a old earth, and such. Lots of good theologians such as BB Warfield, Gleason Archer and such have the wrong view on Biblical creationism leading to their millions of years garbage. The door was their view that the Bible is not infallible, but is inerrant.

 

[Revmitchell]

I think for anyone to try to refute this argument they'd have to do some twisting and turning. Let's see if anyone tries.

They either have to believe that mans imperfection is stronger than God or that God is willing to allow the errors.

 

[John of Japan]

Indeed so. But watch out for what you read on the web on the doctrine as there are many falsehoods. I'd check out a good book on the doctrines. I am reading one by RC Sproul at this time.

Thank you, but I have a very good library on Bibliology (5-6 on inerrancy, many on inspiration and other subjects). However, I admit these books are kind of old, since I originally studied Bibliology back in the '70's and '80's.

Infallibility says the bible can never error in anyway, while inerrancy may put limits. For example if you scored a 100% on a test in this case you were inerrant but you are fallible and the next test you may get a C, so you are not infallible. In the same way those that believe only in inerrancy say the Bible is true in spiritual matters but not true in history and science, which then promotes their views of a local flood, a old earth, and such. Lots of good theologians such as BB Warfield, Gleason Archer and such have the wrong view on Biblical creationism leading to their millions of years garbage.

Thank you for a good explanation of the two terms and their differences. However, whatever else he believed, B. B. Warfield's book on inspiration, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, is a true classic in the field. I also have another by Warfield on the subject, Limited Inspiration, which counters the doctrine of a Bible not fully inspired and thus with errors. His problem (which you've noted but some dispute) was not in the area of inspiration but in hermeneutics.

 

[John of Japan]

They either have to believe that mans imperfection is stronger than God or that God is willing to allow the errors.

And those are both losing propositions. I think your statement shows that the doctrine of inspiration is rooted in theology proper.

 

[evangelist6589]

Thank you, but I have a very good library on Bibliology (5-6 on inerrancy, many on inspiration and other subjects). However, I admit these books are kind of old, since I originally studied Bibliology back in the '70's and '80's.

The one I am reading by RC is from 1997. He has endorsed a book for further study called Standing on the Rock: Upholding Biblical Authority in a Secular Age by James Boice. I remember reading him in seminary and no question Reformed.

Thank you for a good explanation of the two terms and their differences. However, whatever else he believed, B. B. Warfield's book on inspiration, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, is a true classic in the field. I also have another by Warfield on the subject, Limited Inspiration, which counters the doctrine of a Bible not fully inspired and thus with errors. His problem (which you've noted) was not in the area of inspiration but in hermeneutics.

I also read him in seminary and he was very deep. I do not have the book you mentioned but of the thousand or so books out there I have to choose the best of the best. Yes a wrong hermeneutic can lead to a wrong interpretation. However the problem with many these days is that they do not teach hermeneutics or do not understand it.

 

[Revmitchell]

And those are both losing propositions. I think your statement shows that the doctrine of inspiration is rooted in theology proper.

By the way you show great patience with the young whipersnapper.

 

[evenifigoalone]

No argument here. An all-knowing God would surely provide a reliable to speak to His creation.

 

[kyredneck]

I voted 'I believe in the inerrancy of the original manuscripts of the Bible.'

But I also like Archie the Preacher and in no way consider him to be heretical. I enjoy his posts and relate with much of what he says.

 

[John of Japan]

I voted 'I believe in the inerrancy of the original manuscripts of the Bible.'

But I also like Archie the Preacher and in no way consider him to be heretical. I enjoy his posts and relate with much of what he says.

He seems to be a nice guy on other threads than in Bible Versions/Translations in the posts I've read of his. Hopefully we just got a bad start when he first came on. But I do strongly oppose his Bibliology so far.