Biblical errancy.

[37818]

Biblical errancy is real.

Biblical errancy typically has one or more of 3 causes: 1) The reader not correctly understanding what is read. 2) Translation problems. 4) Copyist errors.

It is God who is inerrant and His word. The written word of God which we have in our translations of the Bible are inerrant in their original autographs. The books of the Bible were the inerrant word of God at the time they were written.

 

[atpollard]

Biblical errancy is real.

Biblical errancy typically has one or more of 3 causes: 1) The reader not correctly understanding what is read. 2) Translation problems. 4) Copyist errors.

It is God who is inerrant and His word. The written word of God which we have in our translations of the Bible are inerrant in their original autographs. The books of the Bible were the inerrant word of God at the time they were written.

I love it!

 

[Yeshua1]

Biblical errancy is real.

Biblical errancy typically has one or more of 3 causes: 1) The reader not correctly understanding what is read. 2) Translation problems. 4) Copyist errors.

It is God who is inerrant and His word. The written word of God which we have in our translations of the Bible are inerrant in their original autographs. The books of the Bible were the inerrant word of God at the time they were written.

Yes, and the valid English translations that we have for today to use are the infallible word of the Lord to us,,,

 

[37818]

Yes, and the valid English translations that we have for today to use are the infallible word of the Lord to us,,,

The variations of translation where they contradict, the contradiction is not the word of God. Rather is God's rebuke fo adding to His word (Proverbs 30:6).

 

[Yeshua1]

The variations of translation where they contradict, the contradiction is not the word of God. Rather is God's rebuke fo adding to His word (Proverbs 30:6).

NO reputable moderb version dilutes or alters the word of the lord though to us!

 

[TCassidy]

Biblical errancy typically has one or more of 3 causes: 1) The reader not correctly understanding what is read. 2) Translation problems. 4) Copyist errors.

None of which has anything to do with inerrancy. Even a fairly careless reading of the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" would say that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact."

#1 Your failure to understand does not affect what the original manuscripts said.

#2 Translation problems do not affect what the original manuscripts said.

#3 Copyist errors do not affect what the original manuscripts said.

 

[Yeshua1]

The variations of translation where they contradict, the contradiction is not the word of God. Rather is God's rebuke fo adding to His word (Proverbs 30:6).

Inerrancy applies only towards the originals!

 

[37818]

Inerrancy applies only towards the originals!

None of which has anything to do with inerrancy. Even a fairly careless reading of the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" would say that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact."

#1 Your failure to understand does not affect what the original manuscripts said.

#2 Translation problems do not affect what the original manuscripts said.

#3 Copyist errors do not affect what the original manuscripts said.

What did I say?

 

[37818]

NO reputable moderb version dilutes or alters the word of the lord though to us!

Yes they do. Else they would not contradict each other in places. Words have meaning. Words of opposite meaning have opposite meaning. Variants exist in the copies. It is the word of God which He originally gave us which is without error.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes they do. Else they would not contradict each other in places. Words have meaning. Words of opposite meaning have opposite meaning. Variants exist in the copies. It is the word of God which He originally gave us which is without error.

You are assuming here that the TR and the KJV are the exact copies of the originals though!

 

[37818]

You are assuming here that the TR and the KJV are the exact copies of the originals though!

No. But the copies we have came from the originals. What do you know about what has been identified or called manuscript family 35?

But there still remains the on going problem of translation.
For example: The agreed text: απο καταβολης κοσμου in Revelation 13:8. What is not agreed on should απο be translated as "from" or "before" in that context? Or why it should be translated differently in the other 6 contexts?

One is in accordance with God's word. The other is not (Proverbs 30:6; Revelation 22:18-19).

 

[TCassidy]

What do you know about what has been identified or called manuscript family 35?

Wilbur Pickering has asserted it is the autographical text. Without a whole lot of evidentiary support. Kind of KJVOism on the Greek level.

 

[Yeshua1]

Wilbur Pickering has asserted it is the autographical text. Without a whole lot of evidentiary support. Kind of KJVOism on the Greek level.

We do not have any direct first copy off the originals extant, do we?

 

[37818]

Wilbur Pickering has asserted it is the autographical text. Without a whole lot of evidentiary support. Kind of KJVOism on the Greek level.

Have you read Pickering? Your comment makes it seem that you have not.

Textual criticism is not a settled science. There are points of disagreement. And in some cases there are exceptions to certain rules, which otherwise are true.

Evidence needs to be weighed not counted.

 

[37818]

We do not have any direct first copy off the originals extant, do we?

How would we know that?

 

[HankD]

No. But the copies we have came from the originals. What do you know about what has been identified or called manuscript family 35?

But there still remains the on going problem of translation.
For example: The agreed text: απο καταβολης κοσμου in Revelation 13:8. What is not agreed on should απο be translated as "from" or "before" in that context? Or why it should be translated differently in the other 6 contexts?
.

Because since you seem to know the Greek language of the text, you should also know that the translation of prepositions can be among the most difficult of issues for the translator.

"One is in accordance with God's word. The other is not (Proverbs 30:6; Revelation 22:18-19)" Prove it as a fact. This is your opinion.

 

[Yeshua1]

How would we know that?

How do the KJVO know that we do?

 

[TCassidy]

Have you read Pickering?

Yes, I have. Have you?

Your comment makes it seem that you have not.

Your comment proves to me you have not kept up with Pickering's position on the matter. I suggest you read his IVth edition of "Identity." Then come back and apologize for such a lack of discernment.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, I have. Have you?

Your comment proves to me you have not kept up with Pickering's position on the matter. I suggest you read his IVth edition of "Identity." Then come back and apologize for such a lack of discernment.

For those of us here who have not, what is his latest position then?

 

[TCassidy]

How do the KJVO know that we do?

Who said they did?