Biblical errancy?

[37818]

The Bible being the word of God, as God's word is of course inerrant.

So what is the cause of alleged errancy?

* There are three primary causes.

* The errant readers.
(Such as inaccurate knowledge or understanding of history.)
* Errors in translation.
* Know variants in the copies.

* There are no exceptions.

 

[Scarlett O.]

I would add one more cause of alleged errancy.

• poor teaching, preaching, SS literature, or commentaries/books

 

[37818]

I would add one more cause of alleged inerrancy

Did you misspeak what you meant?

The Bible being the word of God, as God's word is of course inerrant

So what is the cause of alleged errancy?

 

[Scarlett O.]

Did you misspeak what you meant?

Oops!! Yes, I did. I'll correct it.

 

[37818]

I would add one more cause of alleged errancy.

• poor teaching, preaching, SS literature, or commentaries/books

What constitutes what is poor in a teaching or in message preached? it would be case by case, issue by issue.

Biblical difficulties, how to deal witb them?

 

[OnlyaSinner]

Maybe add anti-Christian agenda.

 

[Van]

The bible says it is trustworthy and useful for all sorts of things. Most people agree that the inspired texts in the original autographs were without errors, but we do not have the originals so the claim is unprovable as of today.

There are certainly passages that appear to be corruptions, as shown by variants.

But the intended message of the text is certainly trustworthy and useful.

 

[37818]

Maybe add anti-Christian agenda.

So how do you answer an actual Bible difficulty tha is presented?

 

[37818]

The bible says it is trustworthy and useful for all sorts of things. Most people agree that the inspired texts in the original autographs were without errors, but we do not have the originals so the claim is unprovable as of today.

There are certainly passages that appear to be corruptions, as shown by variants.

But the intended message of the text is certainly trustworthy and useful.

So how do you identify which reading is the original?

 

[Van]

So how do you identify which reading is the original?

Obviously the scholars disagree, with the Critical Text removing what they think are "additions" and the Majority Text often going with the longer variant thinking the shorter one is an omission.

I generally go with the Critical Text, based on the assumption that the later scholars recognized errors made by the earlier scholars.

 

[37818]

Obviously the scholars disagree, with the Critical Text removing what they think are "additions" and the Majority Text often going with the longer variant thinking the shorter one is an omission.

I generally go with the Critical Text, based on the assumption that the later scholars recognized errors made by the earlier scholars.

Are you aware that the CT often caused Biblical difficulties against inerrancy?
For example. Jesus' instructions told His disciples to take a staff. Mark 6:8. But the CT has Jesus instructing them not to take a staff in Matthew 10:10 and Luke 9:3. The TR only does this error in Matthew.

 

[Van]

Are you aware that the CT often caused Biblical difficulties against inerrancy?
For example. Jesus' instructions told His disciples to take a staff. Mark 6:8. But the CT has Jesus instructing them not to take a staff in Matthew 10:10 and Luke 9:3. The TR only does this error in Matthew.

Am I aware that the CT may be in error and either or both the TR and MT might on occasion be correct? Yes.

 

[Van]

A bible difficulty: One staff only or not even one staff?

Since the idea is they are worthy of receiving what they need because of the work they are doing, Jesus tells them not to take extra provisions.

At Matthew 10:10 the KJV (TR) says not to take staves (plural) but the same verse reads not to take a staff (singular) in the NASB (CT). And using the WEB, the MT apparently also has the singular for staff.

So we can resolve this "difficulty" by assuming the idea of a staff is an extra staff, based on the context of not taking extra stuff.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

So how do you identify which reading is the original?

I can't, personally. I've not studied Greek or Hebrew, so I consult (reading or talking) with those who have done the studies and whose doctrinal statement would be similar to mine, and/or whose knowledge of the Bible languages have earned respect from people that I respect.

 

[37818]

. . . apparently also has the singular for staff.

The MT has the plural. The TR and CT has the singular, Re: Matthew 10:10.

 

[Van]

The MT has the plural. The TR and CT has the singular, Re: Matthew 10:10.

The KJV (the one that pops up when you click on the blue Matthew 10:10, which is the TR is plural.

 

[JonC]

I would add looking beyond the purpose of a narrative.

For example, in the past it has been believed that the Earth has four corners or Scripture is incorrect. We consider the Sun must have stood still, literally, while dismissing that expression as used in ancient texts contemporary to Joshua. Or "errors" in chronological order as we want Scripture to have been written as our culture reports the news, and often expect nothing "less".

 

[37818]

The KJV (the one that pops up when you click on the blue Matthew 10:10, which is the TR is plural.

My electronic TR is singular. But has in parentheses Scrivener [1894] TR as plural. The KJV follows what became Scrivener's. There is not one TR.
BTW, the 1611 cross references Luke 9:3. 95% of the Greek for the passage have the plural. Tyndale and the Geneva has the singular.

 

[37818]

I would add looking beyond the purpose of a narrative.

For example, in the past it has been believed that the Earth has four corners or Scripture is incorrect. We consider the Sun must have stood still, literally, while dismissing that expression as used in ancient texts contemporary to Joshua. Or "errors" in chronological order as we want Scripture to have been written as our culture reports the news, and often expect nothing "less".

* There are three primary causes.

* The errant readers.
(Such as inaccurate knowledge or understanding of history.)
* Errors in translation.
* Know variants in the copies.

 

[Van]

My electronic TR is singular. But has in parentheses Scrivener [1894] TR as plural. The KJV follows what became Scrivener's. There is not one TR.
BTW, the 1611 cross references Luke 9:3. 95% of the Greek for the passage have the plural. Tyndale and the Geneva has the singular.

The CT is singular. The MT, based on the WEB has singular. Since the KJV is plural, I do not think the TR is singular.