Inerrancy?

[SolaSaint]

I'm having a conversation with a brother in the Lord and he's challenging me on the inerrancy of scripture. We haven't spoken too much yet, but I'm sure it will continue. My question to you all is "do you believe the bible is inerrant?" I mean the original autographs and not what we have today, although I will argue that we do have a very close replica (formal equivalence) of the autographs that in no way changes the doctrines of Christianity. I feel if we don't stand upon God's word as being truly error free than what do we stand upon?

Thanks for any replies.

 

[Winman]

None of the original autographs exist any more. I don't care what you are looking at, it is a copy, not the original.

So, whether you like it or not, the issue becomes whether God has preserved his word.

 

[preachinjesus]

My question to you all is "do you believe the bible is inerrant?"

Yes, I believe the Bible, the autographs of the 66 books, are inerrant.

I mean the original autographs and not what we have today, although I will argue that we do have a very close replica (formal equivalence) of the autographs that in no way changes the doctrines of Christianity. I feel if we don't stand upon God's word as being truly error free than what do we stand upon?

I think we have a far closer view of the original autographs than we did say 100 years ago...even 50 years ago. The discoveries in archeology along with textual reconstruction have done wonders to bolster our knowledge of what the original might have looked like. Thus I would submit the more recent translations which hold to a strong textual tradition and are more formally equivalent are stronger than some produced before 1900 or so.

I've done a lot of study on this issue and really have come to see how the trust in our contemporary translations is well founded. I would go so far as to say our contemporary translations uphold the tradition of inerrancy, the faithfulness of infallibility, and are the product of generous inspiration. :thumbs:

 

[Winman]

I think we have a far closer view of the original autographs than we did say 100 years ago

How can you say this when there are no original autographs existing today? You have no way whatsoever of knowing this.

Let me ask you this, when Jesus read from Isaiah in Nazareth, do you believe he was reading the exact original autographs written by Isaiah, or was he reading a copy?

Luke 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

It is highly doubtful that the original autographs by Isaiah still existed, and even more unlikely that they were in Nazareth.

So, it still comes down to whether you believe the scriptures were preserved.

 

[kyredneck]

.....It is highly doubtful that the original autographs by Isaiah still existed, and even more unlikely that they were in Nazareth.........

The majority of the quotes from the OT in the NT are from the Septuagint, and if memory serves me right, those were also from different versions of the Septuagint.

....The New Testament writers also relied heavily on the Septuagint, as a majority of Old Testament quotes cited in the New Testament are quoted directly from the Septuagint (others are quoted from the Hebrew texts)....

http://www.septuagint.net/

 

[Winman]

All I'm saying is that the vast majority of scholars agree that the original autographs no longer exist.

So, when it comes down to our modern scriptures you really have only two possibilities.

1) There are no perfect and inerrant translations of the scriptures today.
2) There is one perfect and inerrant translation of the scriptures today.

These are the only two possibilities available. You cannot have more than one perfect translation, because none of the translations perfectly agree with each other.

Seeing you only have these two possibilities, it must come down to a question of preservation.

If God did not preserve the scriptures, then there is no perfect and inerrant translation of the scriptures in the world.

If God did preserve the scriptures, there is only one perfect and inerrant translation.

I believe God did preserve the scriptures, because of many promises to do so in the scriptures.

Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

And I think it is pretty obvious which version it is I believe is that perfect and inerrant translation.

 

[kyredneck]

Winman, I love the KJV, but I'm definitely not KJVO. I believe the ASV and RSV were an improvement over the KJV. It's the Spirit that conveys the message of the Book, NOT the letter of it.

"In Luke 4:16-20 Jesus went to the synagogue on the Sabbath and was called on to read the Scripture portion for the day. When he opened the scroll and began to read, he was at Isaiah 61:1-2. But if we compare what Jesus read, as recorded in Luke, with what is actually written in Isaiah 61:1-2, we find that he did not quote it (or read it) exactly. For example, right after Jesus says, “. . . to preach the gospel to the poor,” he leaves out “he has sent me to heal the broken-hearted” (or at least this is not in most ancient manuscripts). Furthermore, after “preach deliverance to the captives,” Jesus inserts “and recovering of sight to the blind,” which is not in this Isaiah passage but is found in other Isaiah passages, such as 42:7.

There are other instances where the NT quotation of the OT is not exact. Another example is where Mark and Luke, describing the ministry of John the Baptist, supposedly quote Isaiah 40:3 but do not quote it exactly, the difference being the second part of the verse where the writers say, “. . . make his paths straight” whereas Isaiah had originally said, “. . . make straight in the desert a highway for our God.”

In this age of technology where we want everything to be exact and precise, what are we to make of this rather inexact NT quotation of the OT? There are several observations that may help our understanding of this:

First of all, believe it or not, the Old Testament at the time of Christ was still somewhat in a state of flux, and there was more than one version of a number of books and passages. We know this by comparing the Septuagint (Greek OT) and the Massoretic text (the Jewish authorized text), and we also know it from the fact that at Qumran different versions of certain OT books have been found (for example a longer and shorter version of Jeremiah).

The Aramaic targums (translations made for those who could not understand Hebrew) were often embellished somewhat with homiletical material; these were not seen to be mistranslations but rather interpretations which brought out the real meaning of the OT text.

*We know that in some cases NT writers were following neither the Massoretic nor the Septuagint (Greek) text. In that case they are probably following an interpretive tradition. In other words, certain passages were deemed to have certain meanings, and those meanings were sometimes brought out in the quotation. This did not cause people to feel it was being misquoted; rather they thought the underlying meaning was being revealed.

When the NT quotes from the OT it does not always quote exactly. Sometimes it is quoting neither the Septuagint (Greek version) nor the Hebrew Old Testament. I suggested the writers might be quoting either a targum (Aramaic translation) or an “interpretive tradition.”

http://www.appointedtimejerusalem.org/en/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=14

 

[Winman]

Winman, I love the KJV, but I'm definitely not KJVO. I believe the ASV and RSV were an improvement over the KJV. It's the Spirit that conveys the message of the Book, NOT the letter of it.

That's fine, but the question is over inerrancy. Do you believe the ASV inerrant or the RSV? They cannot both be inerrant, because they are not the same. I absolutely disagree with you about the letter of the word being important, words hold definite meaning. We cannot simply interpret the scriptures to mean what we want them to mean.

Maybe people do not understand my point of view. I simply believe God preserved the scriptures as he promised to do. I have come to believe that the KJV is that inerrant version. If a person disagrees, that is fine, just please tell me which version is inerrant.

Or perhaps you believe that no version is inerrant, these are the only two possibilities available.

This is not difficult to understand.

Oh, and if a person wants to claim the Greek and Hebrew texts that do exist (but are all copies) are inerrant, then which one? They do not all agree either.

 

[Winman]

Here is just one verse that is significantly changed in the newer versions.

1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

The KJV says God was manifest in the flesh. This is the strongest verse in all of scripture proving Jesus is God. What do the other versions say?

Here's the NIV

1 Tim 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

How about the RSV?

1 Tim 3:16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

How about the ASV?

1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

Only the KJV tells you Jesus is God, do you think that is an important difference between these versions? I do. So I reject your argument that the letter of scripture is not important. It is vital.

 

[preachinjesus]

How can you say this when there are no original autographs existing today? You have no way whatsoever of knowing this.

Usually when I say "I think" it equals conjecture. You're right I have no way of proving this or knowing it.

Let me ask you this, when Jesus read from Isaiah in Nazareth, do you believe he was reading the exact original autographs written by Isaiah, or was he reading a copy?

A really good copy...:smilewinkgrin:

It is highly doubtful that the original autographs by Isaiah still existed, and even more unlikely that they were in Nazareth.

I would add the second more highly than the first. If the autographs were in existence, and survived the destruction of the first Temple, they would have been in Jerusalem.

So, it still comes down to whether you believe the scriptures were preserved.

Yeah that's basically what I said in my original point. I believe the Scriptures, as we have them, are faithfully transmitted and reconstructed. The quality of the textual apparatus in place now is vastly superior to anything prior, imho.

 

[Winman]

I am not trying to be disagreeable over this. I have debated folks on Bible versions before, very few people change their opinions. But I spent a great deal of thought on this years ago. I wanted to know the truth. I prayed to God to show me the truth. If his word was out there, I wanted to know which version was the right version.

And I do not claim to be infallible. Like I said, if you disagree that the KJV is not the preserved and inerrant word of God, fine, then please tell me which version it is. That's the one I want.

That said, I have already put a great deal of personal study on this and it would be almost impossible to change what I believe now. I read many books on the subject.

All I am really trying to say on this thread is that it will always come down to a question of preservation. It has to.

 

[kyredneck]

That's fine, but the question is over inerrancy. Do you believe the ASV inerrant or the RSV?

I believe God has preserved His Word; well, I KNOW he has.

They cannot both be inerrant, because they are not the same.

Yes they can, and they are the same because they both convey the same meaning.

I absolutely disagree with you about the letter of the word being important, words hold definite meaning.

OK.

We cannot simply interpret the scriptures to mean what we want them to mean.

OK.

Maybe people do not understand my point of view. I simply believe God preserved the scriptures as he promised to do. I have come to believe that the KJV is that inerrant version. If a person disagrees, that is fine, just please tell me which version is inerrant.

OK, but I disagree with you. Stick with the KJVO if that's what floats your boat. It's a free country (still). I enjoy having several versions at my disposal.

Or perhaps you believe that no version is inerrant,......

No. That's not what I believe. But I do believe we have several good translations available to us.

Sola, I don't know how to answer your question; I fully trust the Bible I have, I do believe God has preserved His written Word, although I realize there are some variances between the ancient manuscripts. But there were variances in the days of Christ and the Apostles, and before. I believe the modern scholars have done their best to produce some improved unbiased versions.

The bottom line with me is that the all important thing is for the Spirit to be the one doing the teaching from the Book; whether it be from the preaching or the reading. Without the Spirit it's just letters on paper. Period. There is no innate power of it's own in the letter of it. It has to have the Spirit.

 

[Winman]

Yes they can, and they are the same because they both convey the same meaning.

They do not convey the same meaning, and I showed you a perfect example from several versions. In the KJV 1 Tim 3:16 tells you that God became flesh, the NIV, RSV, and ASV simply say "he". That is a huge difference. Talk to any Jehovah's Witness and they will tell you Jesus is an angel who became flesh, your version would not give them any problem at all. But the KJV gives them a huge problem, because it teaches that Jesus was God, not an angel.

Here is what the JW's NWT translation says

1 Tim 3:16 Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, appeared to angels, was preached about among nations, was believed upon in [the] world, was received up in glory

The Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God and have changed the word "God" to "He" in their version. They wouldn't have a bit of problem with your favorite versions. And they will use this very verse to argue that Jesus is not God but an angel.

I absolutely disagree with you that the different versions all convey the same message. And this is just one verse, I could show you dozens that affect doctrine.

 

[The Archangel]

Here is just one verse that is significantly changed in the newer versions.

1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

The KJV says God was manifest in the flesh. This is the strongest verse in all of scripture proving Jesus is God. What do the other versions say?

Here's the NIV

1 Tim 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

How about the RSV?

1 Tim 3:16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

How about the ASV?

1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

Only the KJV tells you Jesus is God, do you think that is an important difference between these versions? I do. So I reject your argument that the letter of scripture is not important. It is vital.

The only problem is that the Greek has the relative pronoun "He." It is obvious that Paul does indeed refer to Christ. But the text does say "he."

The letter of scripture is vital, but it is the letter of the Hebrew and Greek that are much more important than some 400-year-old translation that was never perfect to begin with.

The Archangel

 

[jbh28]

They do not convey the same meaning, and I showed you a perfect example from several versions. In the KJV 1 Tim 3:16 tells you that God became flesh, the NIV, RSV, and ASV simply say "he". That is a huge difference. Talk to any Jehovah's Witness and they will tell you Jesus is an angel who became flesh, your version would not give them any problem at all. But the KJV gives them a huge problem, because it teaches that Jesus was God, not an angel.

Here is what the JW's NWT translation says

1 Tim 3:16 Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, appeared to angels, was preached about among nations, was believed upon in [the] world, was received up in glory

The Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God and have changed the word "God" to "He" in their version. They wouldn't have a bit of problem with your favorite versions. And they will use this very verse to argue that Jesus is not God but an angel.

I absolutely disagree with you that the different versions all convey the same message. And this is just one verse, I could show you dozens that affect doctrine.

The NIV, RSV, and ASV (along with the NASB and the ESV) all teach that Jesus is God. They NIV, NASB, ESV and the ASV. all teach the same thing. Sure you might find a passage that is stronger in one that the other, but the same doctrines are still taught. I Timothy 3:16 has a textual variant. While I would love the KJV's rendering, we must not let our theology dictate what the proper variant is.

You said earler,

If God did not preserve the scriptures, then there is no perfect and inerrant translation of the scriptures in the world.

If God did preserve the scriptures, there is only one perfect and inerrant translation.

The first one would be true if God didn't preserve His Word. Of course we know that He did just as He promised. The second one isn't right either. Yes, God did preserve the Scriptures, but that doesn't mean there is only one perfect and inerrant translation. Was the Bible preserved prior to the KJV? Was there a perfect and inerrant transitional before the kjv? No, and the Scriptures were still preserved.

I'm having a conversation with a brother in the Lord and he's challenging me on the inerrancy of scripture. We haven't spoken too much yet, but I'm sure it will continue. My question to you all is "do you believe the bible is inerrant?" I mean the original autographs and not what we have today, although I will argue that we do have a very close replica (formal equivalence) of the autographs that in no way changes the doctrines of Christianity. I feel if we don't stand upon God's word as being truly error free than what do we stand upon?

Thanks for any replies.

As far as inerrancy goes, the Scriptures(the words) are inerrant. They have always been inerrant and will always be inerrant. Whether I write them down correctly or not doesn't mean that the Scriptures are inerrant or not. My copy might not be inerrant, but the words that God gave us are and will always be inerrant.

And the many copies that we have and the many translations that we have, we know that the Bible is preserved. Any good faithful translation (like the ESV, NASB, NIV, KJV...) all agree on the main doctrines of our Christian faith. They deity of Christ is clearly taught, the inerrancy of Scriptures, the death and resurrection of Christ, that salvation is by grace through faith and many other doctrines.

 

[TomVols]

I do believe in the inerrancy, inspiration, and infallability of Scripture.

 

[Dr. Bob]

All I'm saying is that the vast majority of scholars agree that the original autographs no longer exist.

So, when it comes down to our modern scriptures you really have only two possibilities.

1) There are no perfect and inerrant translations of the scriptures today.
2) There is one perfect and inerrant translation of the scriptures today.

These are the only two possibilities available. You cannot have more than one perfect translation, because none of the translations perfectly agree with each other.

Seeing you only have these two possibilities, it must come down to a question of preservation.

If God did not preserve the scriptures, then there is no perfect and inerrant translation of the scriptures in the world.

If God did preserve the scriptures, there is only one perfect and inerrant translation.

I believe God did preserve the scriptures, because of many promises to do so in the scriptures.

Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

And I think it is pretty obvious which version it is I believe is that perfect and inerrant translation.

There is so much error in this single post that I am appalled to see anyone say they believe such.

Shocking erroneous conclusions, no logic, shifting antecedents (God promised to preserve His Word and somehow that means "translations"??), and a host more.

We are talking about God preserving His Word (which He has and we have - learn Hebrew if you wonder about it) and NOTHING TO DO with manp-made fallible translations.

No matter WHICH translation in ANY language. Works of man = error.

 

[Eagle]

"The letter of scripture is vital, but it is the letter of the Hebrew and Greek that are much more important than some 400-year-old translation that was never perfect to begin with."

The Archangel

I wholeheartedly agree with this & what Dr. Bob said. It is lunacy (oops, I mean illogical) to say there is a perfect and/or inerrant translation of anything -- besides the fact that you first must settle the EXACT, PERFECT copy of original language manuscripts (not just "family" of texts) -- for which even the KJV translators, in their own words, in their preface, didn't admit to having.

However, I would add that 'recent' Greek manuscript 'discoveries' -- if believed to be 'more accurate' would only prove that we did not have God's Word in all the translations based on the former and plentiful family of texts. I think it more likely that the 'new' & 'old' were shelved and 'forgotten' -- because they were understood to be spurious -- but the librarians just couldn't force themselves to throw away any book, due to the rarity & value of them.

 

[kyredneck]

The NIV, RSV, and ASV (along with the NASB and the ESV) all teach that Jesus is God. They NIV, NASB, ESV and the ASV. all teach the same thing. Sure you might find a passage that is stronger in one that the other, but the same doctrines are still taught. I Timothy 3:16 has a textual variant. While I would love the KJV's rendering, we must not let our theology dictate what the proper variant is.

You said earler,

The first one would be true if God didn't preserve His Word. Of course we know that He did just as He promised. The second one isn't right either. Yes, God did preserve the Scriptures, but that doesn't mean there is only one perfect and inerrant translation. Was the Bible preserved prior to the KJV? Was there a perfect and inerrant transitional before the kjv? No, and the Scriptures were still preserved.




As far as inerrancy goes, the Scriptures(the words) are inerrant. They have always been inerrant and will always be inerrant. Whether I write them down correctly or not doesn't mean that the Scriptures are inerrant or not. My copy might not be inerrant, but the words that God gave us are and will always be inerrant.

And the many copies that we have and the many translations that we have, we know that the Bible is preserved. Any good faithful translation (like the ESV, NASB, NIV, KJV...) all agree on the main doctrines of our Christian faith. They deity of Christ is clearly taught, the inerrancy of Scriptures, the death and resurrection of Christ, that salvation is by grace through faith and many other doctrines.

Good post jbh, and welcome to the BB.

 

[SolaSaint]

Thanks all for the posts, however I do feel like my OP got hijacked and made into a translation debate. This wasn't my intention. I also see it was moved to the Bible version/translation forum? Again I wasn't looking for a translation debate. I was wanting everyone's theological view of the inerrancy of scripture. Thank you if you replied as such.

I do agree with the several posts that we do have a more accurate bible today since all the archeological evidence and reconstruction of what is believed to be closer to the originals. I know we will never have the originals, but I have faith that God has preserved the bible intact with same doctrine as was taught to the first Christians who did have the originals. Sure many translations vary, but I agree with kyredneck and others that the differences are minor and in no way give us a different doctrine. Looking systematically at scripture we still have what the writers of scripture penned from God.