Do you believe in the scriptures being Infallable?

[HankD]

But wouldn't the abandonment of the historically held belief in an inerrant bible disqualify a person from being a "conservative evangelical?"

I suppose that would depend on how you define "all true."

For instance, I have noticed in the past couple years that my study habits have deteriorated and I am starting to lose the ability to focus on a subject to exegete every nuance of meaning. So, in my old age I have gone back to school! I am presently enrolled in three classes at Dallas Theological Seminary. Genesis. John. And a refresher in Bible Hermeneutics.

I was delighted to discover the Professor teaching Genesis, Dr. James Allman, Professor of Old Testament Studies and Hebrew at DTS, believes the same as I do about Genesis.

And that is that verse 1 of chapter 1 is a title giving a summary of the entire event, and verse 2 is the first verse of the actual narrative expressing the condition of the earth at the time the narrative begins, with verse 3 beginning to tell the story.

It is imperative for any man, to be a teacher of the bible, to know the languages the bible was inspired in. In this case, Hebrew. Without a knowledge of the Hebrew language the teacher (so-called) would not know that verse two starts with a disjunctive clause which means that verse 2 is not an outgrowth of verse 1, either chronologically or logically. This is a standard methodology of Hebrew when recounting a narrative. First a summary (verse 1) followed by a statement of conditions at the beginning of the narrative (verse 2) then the narrative itself (verses 3 and following).

Don't forget the waw consecutive usage in Genesis chapter 1.
AOBTW what in your opinion is the significance of its obvious use?

My opinion is that verses 3ff are inseparable so that no day-age with gaps theory is possible.

HankD

 

[SovereignGrace]

Brother Jordan,

What verses in the KJV do you see are not correct...I.E. in error?

 

[HankD]

Exactly. One position (KJVO or TRO) is based on uninformed opinion. The other position (mine ) is based on a scholarly examination of the text, its transmission, and the text-critical criteria used to arrive at an informed conclusion.

As a former KJVO devotee (recovered of course) , I agree completely.

HankD

 

[HankD]

Every Baptist on the BB believes the bible is the inspired, infallible, word of God. Be careful of making false accusations against other BB members.

I beg your pardon, it was no false accusation. he misspelled infallible!








Just kiddin'
HankD

 

[TCassidy]

Don't forget the waw consecutive usage in Genesis chapter 1.

The problem is that there is no waw consecutive in verse two. The first waw consecutive is found in verse three. Verse two starts with a waw disjunctive (also called a waw circumstantial).

AOBTW what in your opinion is the significance of its obvious use?

See my brief exegesis following the next quote.

Short version:

Verse 1: Here is what we are going to talk about.
Verse 2: Here is the situation at the start of the story.
Verse 3 and following: Here is what God did and when he did it.

My opinion is that verses 3ff are inseparable so that no day-age with gaps theory is possible.

I agree. The gap theory is completely untenable, grammatically, theologically, inferentially, and logically.

Exegesis:

Syntactically, the first word in the verse is (we-ha'arets). The initial we- is translated “and” in many Bibles. Hebrew scholars describe this particle as a “waw circumstantial”, as opposed to a “waw consecutive”, the form opening verse 3.

This waw circumstantial is typically (as is the case here) attached to a following noun and not to a verb. Thus we have literally, comparing verses 2 and 3:

Now the earth was, . . (Hebrew form we- + noun) indicating circumstances or condition of the earth at the time of the beginning of the narrative.

And said God … (Hebrew form wa- + verb)

So the first clause in verse 2 is circumstantial, while the first clause in verse 3 is consecutive, it follows, both chronologically and logically from the circumstances of verse 2. The event in verse 3 happened after the situation in verse 2, whereas the situation in verse 2 represents circumstances existing at the start of the beginning of the narrative.

We can then understand the full meaning from the form of the particle waw and from the order of words.

For consecutive events the verb precedes the noun, but for circumstantial statements the noun precedes the verb when the noun is the center of attention. Word order is as important in Hebrew as it is in English.

So, verse two is separated from verse 1 by the use of the disjunctive form of the waw-circumstantial while verse 3 is connected to verse 2 by use of the waw-connective.

What is being said here is simply that "God created the heavens and the earth." That is a statement of fact without any indication of time. There is no "when" attached to the statement.

When did God create the heavens and the earth? God does not say, so we should not speculate.

But God does tells us when he formed the as yet unformed (tohu, shapeless) earth, and when he filled the as yet unfilled (bohu, empty) earth. He did it in six consecutive days (as each subsequent verse begins with the waw-connective).

The gap theory is impossible because it teaches death existed before death was imposed on creation and for many other reasons I will not go into here.

Again, great discussion! It is threads such as this one that restores my esteem for the Baptist Board and for many of the people posting here.

 

[HankD]

The problem is that there is no waw consecutive in verse two. The first waw consecutive is found in verse three. Verse two starts with a waw disjunctive (also called a waw circumstantial).

See my brief exegesis following the next quote.

Short version:

Verse 1: Here is what we are going to talk about.
Verse 2: Here is the situation at the start of the story.
Verse 3 and following: Here is what God did and when he did it.

I agree. The gap theory is completely untenable, grammatically, theologically, inferentially, and logically.

Exegesis:

Syntactically, the first word in the verse is (we-ha'arets). The initial we- is translated “and” in many Bibles. Hebrew scholars describe this particle as a “waw circumstantial”, as opposed to a “waw consecutive”, the form opening verse 3.

This waw circumstantial is typically (as is the case here) attached to a following noun and not to a verb. Thus we have literally, comparing verses 2 and 3:

Now the earth was, . . (Hebrew form we- + noun) indicating circumstances or condition of the earth at the time of the beginning of the narrative.

And said God … (Hebrew form wa- + verb)

So the first clause in verse 2 is circumstantial, while the first clause in verse 3 is consecutive, it follows, both chronologically and logically from the circumstances of verse 2. The event in verse 3 happened after the situation in verse 2, whereas the situation in verse 2 represents circumstances existing at the start of the beginning of the narrative.

We can then understand the full meaning from the form of the particle waw and from the order of words.

For consecutive events the verb precedes the noun, but for circumstantial statements the noun precedes the verb when the noun is the center of attention. Word order is as important in Hebrew as it is in English.

So, verse two is separated from verse 1 by the use of the disjunctive form of the waw-circumstantial while verse 3 is connected to verse 2 by use of the waw-connective.

What is being said here is simply that "God created the heavens and the earth." That is a statement of fact without any indication of time. There is no "when" attached to the statement.

When did God create the heavens and the earth? God does not say, so we should not speculate.

But God does tells us when he formed the as yet unformed (tohu, shapeless) earth, and when he filled the as yet unfilled (bohu, empty) earth. He did it in six consecutive days (as each subsequent verse begins with the waw-connective).

The gap theory is impossible because it teaches death existed before death was imposed on creation and for many other reasons I will not go into here.

Again, great discussion! It is threads such as this one that restores my esteem for the Baptist Board and form many of the people posting here.

Yes, I know of the different waw's, I had a real Jewish "rabbi" (converted of course - Dr. Daniel Goldberg) as my Hebrew professor and he instilled in me the love of Hebrew.

I see what you are saying, very interesting and I agree.

IMO, It can still be vav connective in that the text sees the creation as a closed rose blossom opening or perhaps an egg.

In the beginning was the egg
and the egg was an oval sphere
and the egg hatched and the chick climbed out
_________________

and the chick peeped
and the chick pecked at the ground
and the chick scratched the ground with is foot
and, and, etc...

Just a thought

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

IMO, It can still be vav connective

But it can't be. As it is attached to the noun, and not a verb, it is by definition a circumstantial and not a connective/consecutive. It describes how the earth was, and not when it became that way. Every English translation agrees with that by saying "And the earth was (circumstantial) without form and void" or similar words indicating a similar understanding.

There is no doubt that every verse after verse 3, with the exception of only one, begins the same way, but verse two is incontestably a circumstantial/disjunctive.

 

[HankD]

But it can't be. As it is attached to the noun, and not a verb, it is by definition a circumstantial and not a connective/consecutive. It describes how the earth was, and not when it became that way. Every English translation agrees with that by saying "And the earth was (circumstantial) without form and void" or similar words indicating a similar understanding.

There is no doubt that every verse after verse 3, with the exception of only one, begins the same way, but verse two is incontestably a circumstantial/disjunctive.

Yes, I knew that about the verb vs noun.
But maybe its an exception. All the vav's line up.
That's why I said "just a thought".

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

That's why I said "just a thought".

Think again.

(LOL! I just crack me up! )

 

[HankD]

Think again.

(LOL! I just crack me up! )

Why, are you an Egghead?



HankD

 

[TCassidy]

Why, are you an Egghead?



HankD

Yes. A good egg. Seriously cracked, but still . . . . .

 

[SovereignGrace]

"I think we've drifted here." Andy Taylor as he was talking to his son Opie.

 

[HankD]

Yes. A good egg. Seriously cracked, but still . . . . .

Welcome to the club!



HankD

 

[HankD]

"I think we've drifted here." Andy Taylor as he was talking to his son Opie.

Why? Aren't we in Kansas anymore?

HankD

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I believe the Byzantine textform is without error of fact. But even the Alexandrian textform, which I believe to be inferior to the Byzantine textform, is without error of fact. There are variances of how those facts are expressed, variants in spellings, variants in word order, etc., but the facts they present are still true and correct.

Now when you say Byzantine Textform, what exactly do you mean? would that also be the same as a text type? because I am not asking for a text type, but an actual phyisical text. Where can I get a physical copy of the infallible Byzantine text? Is there a Greek text you can point me to?

 

[TCassidy]

Now when you say Byzantine Textform, what exactly do you mean?

I mean the Byzantine Textform.

would that also be the same as a text type?

It can be used that way, yes.

because I am not asking for a text type, but an actual phyisical text.

Okay.

Where can I get a physical copy of the infallible Byzantine text?

Is there a Greek text you can point me to?

Yes, I just gave you the URL where you can order it.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I believe the Byzantine textform is without error of fact. But even the Alexandrian textform, which I believe to be inferior to the Byzantine textform, is without error of fact. There are variances of how those facts are expressed, variants in spellings, variants in word order, etc., but the facts they present are still true and correct.

I believe the Byzantine textform is without error of fact. But even the Alexandrian textform, which I believe to be inferior to the Byzantine textform, is without error of fact. There are variances of how those facts are expressed, variants in spellings, variants in word order, etc., but the facts they present are still true and correct.

Luke 2:14 KJB, NKJV - "on earth peace, GOOD WILL TOWARD MEN."

NASB, RSV, ESV, NET - "on earth peace AMONG THOSE WITH WHOM HE IS PLEASED."

NIV, Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 - "peace on earth TO THOSE ON WHOM HIS FAVOR RESTS."

Do you also believe that the NIV is without "error of fact" when it says "to those on whom his favor rests"?
Do you believe that he angels historically said "to those on whom his favor rests"?

"In the Textus Receptus the rich young ruler calls Jesus "Good Master" and Jesus responds asking the ruler, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God." In the Nestle-Aland the conversation is about "what is good" rather than about Jesus being good and the inference that Jesus must therefore be God." http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/q-are-...he-textus-receptus-and-nestle-aland-important

is Nestle Aland text here without "error of fact" that Jesus said "what is good" rather than "why callest thou me good" ?

Revelation 22:19: The Textus Receptus says "book of life", not "tree of life" as opposed to the Alexandrian.

Are you to tell me that "book of life" and "tree of life" are both not a "error of fact"?

For you to try and imply that between the different Greek source texts that there are not substantial, factual, differences is deceptive. There's one thing between a differences in choices of translations of words for English translations, but the above examples are quite different than that. In the examples I cited above, it's clear that at least one of the two texts are in error. You should be honest and admit that the Alexandrian text does in fact have "errors of fact", or at least be honest and admit you don't really think that the Byzantine textform is Infallible, because if you really do, the above examples from the Alexandrian texts are in fact errors.

 

[Revmitchell]

Luke 2:14 KJB, NKJV - "on earth peace, GOOD WILL TOWARD MEN."

NASB, RSV, ESV, NET - "on earth peace AMONG THOSE WITH WHOM HE IS PLEASED."

NIV, Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 - "peace on earth TO THOSE ON WHOM HIS FAVOR RESTS."

Do you also believe that the NIV is without "error of fact" when it says "to those on whom his favor rests"?
Do you believe that he angels historically said "to those on whom his favor rests"?

I am no fan of the NIV but you need to understand your posts on this subject are foolish. You are treating the english translations as if they are the original language. This is a serious error. You need to go find you a good concordance and look carefully at each word. Unfortunately when you do you will be embarrassed of your posts.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I am no fan of the NIV but you need to understand your posts on this subject are foolish. You are treating the english translations as if they are the original language. This is a serious error. You need to go find you a good concordance and look carefully at each word. Unfortunately when you do you will be embarrassed of your posts.

Obviously you didn't read my
Whole post because I gave two other examples where the Greek texts have differences of real substance.

I simply used an English translation issue for the first one to show the inconsistency of claiming all translations are infallible.

 

[HankD]

Obviously you didn't read my
Whole post because I gave two other examples where the Greek texts have differences of real substance.

I simply used an English translation issue for the first one to show the inconsistency of claiming all translations are infallible.

They are infallible according to the definitions given in the thread.
Only the originals are perfectly infallible.
We do not have the originals.
The 1611KJV English text is no exception as it has a similar problem.

We do not have the originals of the First Edition KJV1611.
They have been lost in the passage of time.
There were two editions of the KJV1611, the Oxford and Cambridge.
Scan through the KJVO archives to find lists of the differences.

Some say the Cambridge is "pure".

I have now launched a website which details this area, and have also freely made available an exactly correct electronic text of the King James Bible (without typographical or edition variation errors). The Pure Cambridge Edition is the historically received true text of the Authorized Version.

http://www.bibleprotector.com/purecambridgeedition.htm

Some say it is a counterfeit.

At any rate I had bought the Bible I thought I wanted. It had been published by Cambridge. They have always been the giant in the industry. In fact they are the oldest Printer and Publisher in the world. They are supposed to be the gold standard for dependability according to many King James Bible believers. This Bible had a nice black French Morocco leather cover with golden coloured gilt edges. It was very nice on the outside but when I started checking out the inside I was shocked. This particular edition of the Cambridge Bible that calls itself a King James Bible is not genuine. IT'S A COUNTERFEIT! It's not the Bible of my forefathers!

https://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html

Hmm...

HankD