inerrancy questions

[menageriekeeper]

Why do the scriptures have to be inerrant down to the use of one synonym over another?

Why do they have to be "inerrant" at all? By this I mean, do the scriptures themselves tell us that we MUST preserve the most uncorrupted copy of scripture possible?

Do we not reduce God's abilities when we claim He can't (or won't?) work through the NIV or the Amplified?

Is the Word of God not something more than ink printed on paper that can be destroyed at a moments notice?

See, as I see it, the whole arguement over which is the best Bible version comes down to the issue of inerrancy and God's ability to preserve His Word. Since I believe that Christ is the embodiment of the Word of God and God preserved Him unto heaven, we have better things to do than worry about whether our copy of the Bible is "perfect". Not only, but I think we take to much upon ourselves to believe we are capable of preserving a "perfect" copy of scripture and the idea that we imperfect humans can keep something "perfectly" might just become one of those idols the scriptures warn us about.

I do NOT want this thread to dissolve into discussion over the merits of one version over another. I especially don't want this to devolve into anther thread on which translation might be the best or worst. Stick to the issue of inerrancy, please.

Mods, if you feel this thread would be better suited to the "translation" forum feel free to move it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Why do the scriptures have to be inerrant down to the use of one synonym over another?

Why do they have to be "inerrant" at all? By this I mean, do the scriptures themselves tell us that we MUST preserve the most uncorrupted copy of scripture possible?

Do we not reduce God's abilities when we claim He can't (or won't?) work through the NIV or the Amplified?

Is the Word of God not something more than ink printed on paper that can be destroyed at a moments notice?

See, as I see it, the whole arguement over which is the best Bible version comes down to the issue of inerrancy and God's ability to preserve His Word. Since I believe that Christ is the embodiment of the Word of God and God preserved Him unto heaven, we have better things to do than worry about whether our copy of the Bible is "perfect". Not only, but I think we take to much upon ourselves to believe we are capable of preserving a "perfect" copy of scripture and the idea that we imperfect humans can keep something "perfectly" might just become one of those idols the scriptures warn us about.

I do NOT want this thread to dissolve into discussion over the merits of one version over another. I especially don't want this to devolve into anther thread on which translation might be the best or worst. Stick to the issue of inerrancy, please.

Mods, if you feel this thread would be better suited to the "translation" forum feel free to move it.

How do you define Inerrant?

 

[menageriekeeper]

How do you define Inerrant?

Complete and wholy without mistake (including translation errors). Isn't that the normal definition of inerrant?

However, feel free to use your own definition of inerrant if it differs from mine, just be sure to clearly state what definition you are using. I'm sure we can learn something just from the different ways people here on the BB define the word.

 

[Deacon]

The basis for inerrancy is formed by what scripture says about itself.

See 2 Pet. 1:19, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16; 1 John 5:9; 1 Thess. 2:13.

(This is a strong opinion/conviction) There are no inerrant translations!

A translation is a step removed from the original.

Rob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Complete and wholy without mistake (including translation errors). Isn't that the normal definition of inerrant?

However, feel free to use your own definition of inerrant if it differs from mine, just be sure to clearly state what definition you are using. I'm sure we can learn something just from the different ways people here on the BB define the word.

Yes and No. I think I would define it as the following

the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms

For instance you can find divergences in the scripture for instance which one is right?

"In the eleventh year of Joram the son of Ahab began Ahaziah to reign over Judah." 2Ki 9:29
"In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah began to reign." 2Ki 8:25

So how you define inerrant is important. Is the bible that we have in anyh translation impeccable? No.

 

[Revmitchell]

Why do the scriptures have to be inerrant down to the use of one synonym over another?

Why do they have to be "inerrant" at all? By this I mean, do the scriptures themselves tell us that we MUST preserve the most uncorrupted copy of scripture possible?

Do we not reduce God's abilities when we claim He can't (or won't?) work through the NIV or the Amplified?

Is the Word of God not something more than ink printed on paper that can be destroyed at a moments notice?

See, as I see it, the whole arguement over which is the best Bible version comes down to the issue of inerrancy and God's ability to preserve His Word. Since I believe that Christ is the embodiment of the Word of God and God preserved Him unto heaven, we have better things to do than worry about whether our copy of the Bible is "perfect". Not only, but I think we take to much upon ourselves to believe we are capable of preserving a "perfect" copy of scripture and the idea that we imperfect humans can keep something "perfectly" might just become one of those idols the scriptures warn us about.

I do NOT want this thread to dissolve into discussion over the merits of one version over another. I especially don't want this to devolve into anther thread on which translation might be the best or worst. Stick to the issue of inerrancy, please.

Mods, if you feel this thread would be better suited to the "translation" forum feel free to move it.

The arguments over different versions is not based on the issue of inerrancy. We do need to,as a church, be careful of what is an acceptable translation. Otherwise you get things like the NWT.

Whether or not people have better things to do than debate issues of translation is up to them. But such questions are usually raised to squelch any opposition toward someones pet issue. There is room for debate over a great many things.

Inerrancy is a very important doctrine and many folks like to redefine it to fit within their personal perimeters. Inerrancy does not address any copiest errors in any way. That is a separate issue. Even today scripture is true and correct in all doctrine and biblical narratives.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Since I've set myself up on the opposite side of this debate let me point out:

2 Pet 1:19 says we have a "more sure" prophecy. More sure is not a definition of "inerrant".

21 says move of the Holy Ghost and doesn't really speak to inerrancy, unless you think a man can't make a spelling or grammar mistake when he is "moved of the Holy Ghost".

2 Timothy 3:16 given by God and profitable, but it is man that is expected to be made perfect, not the printed scriptures

1 John 5 speaks of records and testimony in heaven which even I would expect to be perfect and inerrant by any definition of the words. It doesn't claim that we today have a "perfectly inerrant" copy in every language thus translated.

1Th 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

I like this verse! I like it a lot because it supports my view of things. That is, it points to my view that scripture is a reflection of Christ and it is the Holy Spirit that perfects our imperfect translations and copies of copies of copies of Bible manuscripts.

(This is a strong opinion/conviction) There are no inerrant translations!

I agree with the exception of those versions of the Bible which have been clearly changed to suit the preferences of one group or another. Even then, I believe that God is perfectly capable of preserving His own.

 

[menageriekeeper]

the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms

I would accept that ideal if we HAD a copy of the original autographs! But we don't. We have some very old manuscripts, but they can't be said to be "original". So where does that leave us?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I would accept that ideal if we HAD a copy of the original autographs! But we don't. We have some very old manuscripts, but they can't be said to be "original". So where does that leave us?

With copies that have transcription errors. Which is why the definition is important.

 

[jaigner]

Boy, inerrant is a really broken word. I myself would affirm it, but I'm not sure anyone pays attention to the meaning anymore; instead they just listen to make sure an individual affirms inerrancy and go on with their business.

But, originally, the inerrant term was used to mean in the original manuscripts only, not copies and translations.

And we know there are translation errors.

 

[psalms109:31]

Multi

The words from Hebrew have multi meaning in our language just like many other language.

God had the Holy Bible translated just the way He wanted it.

God had the Holy Bible translated in many language to reach the world and continues.

God had the Holy Bible tranlated for us, so we can see for ourselves what the scripture says and not to depend on men.

I believe He protected it in the translation and gave us what He wanted us to know. Spend some time in the index and trust God and the Holy Spirit as you read the scripture and learn from Him.