Inerrancy?

[Thermodynamics]

This thread has made me want a slice of cake!

 

[Rippon]

Well, this is impossible, because many verses and passages are omitted and many words are changed.

You are using the KJV (of whatever variety) as the standard. It differs from the KJV -- so it's wrong in your faulty opinion.

Actually the KJV revisers unintentionally added many verses and extra fillers to the text. They also omitted a bit as well -- but most of the time lots of things were added.

So, in the end I always ask the same question, but nobody ever answers it, I ask if the KJV is not the accurate and preserved Word of God, then which version is?

The KJV's are not the singular expression of God's Word in the English language. And compared with many modern versions it is not nearly so accurate.

At the time of the KJV's release -- I would say that the Geneva Bible was more accurate than the former. (Based on the manuscripts etc. that were available then). Accuracy also takes into account the language used. The language of the Geneva Bible was better and not so archaic (ironically enough).

So, very simple question, which version(s) do you personally believe to be accurate and infallible translations of the word of God?

No translation is infallible. As far as general accuracy goes -- the TNIV,HCSB and ISV rank at the top in my estimation.

 

[Winman]

I'm a little late to the slow.

And God could not be behind anyone else at any other time? last I checked God was still God and He was still alive and kinking.

Who said that? I was just stating that I believe God was behind bringing about the KJV.

How do you make a chocolate cake? I can make one using one of a dozen recipes that I have and I do not have a corner on that market at all. The end result will be a chocolate cake, though. Each one may be slightly different fromt he next but all will be an honest to goodness chocolate cake.

The same goes for God's word. There are more than one language, and there are more than one set of translators. Any of them can give you God's word in its entirety. Will they be inerrant? Yes, they will... even though they are not identical.

I must say, this is a terrible analogy.

So how can I claim that? Because we are talking about translations, not the source texts (autographs). Translation is not an exact science. I help teach "English as a Second Language" to Russian speakers. The translator that works with us will translate a problem word or phrase for the students and she does so in two or more different phrases. Why? Because it can be said more than one way. English is even worse for this.

Well, I imagine that translators do try to capture the exact intent and meaning. When our Secretary of State goes to another country and relies on interpreters, I cannot imagine them treating translation as lightly as you do.

But, what about the underlying manuscripts? Glad you asked. I am sure you would say that the TR is the true Greek text as this was (mainly) what was used for the KJV. The problem is that you would be speaking from your own thoughts. The honest truth is that NNE knows exactly which is the true Greek text, or if any of them are 100% accurate... and that includes the TR.

This has been my argument from my first post, the original autographs are gone forever. So all this debate is meaningless, it comes down to whether a person believes God has preserved the scriptures or not.

So, how do we have an inerrant bible? Because God is God. All your arguments about how thousand of words are different is just wind. Of course they are different because any other translation is not the KJV. Missing verses? Did you look at the footnotes and see why they were not included, that the verses is not in all manuscripts? That's called "being honest".

Baloney, my argument is logical and plain old common sense. God either preserved his word or not. If God did preserve his word, then the question becomes "where is it?".

But you cannot make a silly argument that the scriptures are like chocolate cake. The KJV is very different from the MVs, anybody that denies that is simply ignorant. You cannot have two very different versions of scripture and say they are both inerrant.

See the problem with this? It is "I". There is no "I" in God. God is the one who does the preserving. No where in His word (or in any translation) does He say He would only do so in a single form in any language. Instead He said He would preserve His word, period. He does not have to use English to do so as there are more widely used languages in the world.

God doesn't have to say that, it is common sense. I have no problem believing the scriptures can be translated into other languages. What I am saying is that you cannot have two versions of English that are very different and say they are the same and both are inerrant. That is ridiculous.

Basically you are taking your own personal belief about this and trying to make it God's belief. Again, last time I checked (a few minutes ago in prayer) God was alive and kicking and in full command of His facilities and did not need you or me to tell Him what to do or say. Having your own personal preference is fine and dandy... but you seem to forget that your preference is just that, your preference. It does not come from God's word and cannot be argued from God's word (any translation).

You are correct. I have said from the beginning it is a matter of faith. There will never be a way to resolve this matter through scholarship as the original autographs are lost forever. So, it must come down to whether you believe God preserved his infallible and inerrant word or not.

If you want to cling tot he KJV you are more than entitled to do so. It is a grand translation. The one thing the KJV is not is the measuring stick for any other translation. It falls into the same category as all other English bibles as they are once removed from the original languages.

I have never attacked anyone for using another version.

No one is bothered by you preferring the KJV. What bothers people is when you, or any other KJVO, starts spouting off about the KJV being God's only word in the English language and throwing off on and insinuating that any other translation is corrupt in some form. Disrespecting God's word in other translations is still disrespecting God's word.

What do you care what I think? I am not bothered by what you believe. And I don't "spout off" as you say, I rarely engage in this debate. But I am entitled to my opinion of whether other versions are corrupt.

So, as I could have said from the start without wasting all this time typing, we have God's inerrant word in a myriad of different translations. They may not use the exact same words, but they are all God's inerrant word. Which translations? Take your pick (excluding cultic submissions and such of course)... even the KJV translators wrote that the "meanest" of translations were still God's word.

I disagree. You cannot have two versions that are very different in content both being inerrant. Look, you objected when I said the MVs omit many verses in the KJV. You said it was error when I use the KJV as a standard. Fine, you are absolutely correct. But you are proving my point, if one of the MVs is the inerrant word of God, then the KJV must be corrupt because it has added to God's word.

I have said that all along. If you don't believe the KJV is the inerrant word of God, fine, just tell me which version is. But you need to quit arguing that versions that are very different in content are all inerrant at the same time, that is absolutely absurd.

 

[Amy.G]

we have God's inerrant word in a myriad of different translations.

Which of these versions is inerrant?

KJV
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:

NKJV
But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.

NIV
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother*will be subject to judgment.

NASB
"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court;

ESV
“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother* will be liable to judgment;



When I was using the NIV, this verse bothered me a lot. At that time, I didn't know that it was rendered differently in other versions. I believed that every time I was angry, that I was sinning, which is certainly not true, or else our Savior sinned when He became angry.

So there you have 2 completely opposing doctrines. How can you say that all versions are inerrant?

 

[Winman]

Which of these versions is inerrant?

KJV
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:

NKJV
But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.

NIV
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother*will be subject to judgment.

NASB
"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court;

ESV
“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother* will be liable to judgment;



When I was using the NIV, this verse bothered me a lot. At that time, I didn't know that it was rendered differently in other versions. I believed that every time I was angry, that I was sinning, which is certainly not true, or else our Savior sinned when He became angry.

So there you have 2 completely opposing doctrines. How can you say that all versions are inerrant?

Thank you Amy, you have demonstrated what I was saying, the different versions are not the same whatsoever, so you cannot say they are all inerrant at the same time.

The KJV and the NKJV both say that when a person is angry at their brother "without a cause" it is a sin.

The other versions say that if you are simply angry at your brother it is a sin.

That is a big difference. It is not sin to be angry at someone for a legitimate reason. If someone breaks into your house and steals all your possessions, it is not sinful to be a little angry and upset about it.

But the other versions you showed would make it a sin to be angry at your fellow man for any reason.

So there is no way all these different versions are in agreement on doctrine, and therefore cannot ALL be inerrant.

 

[TC]

Which of these versions is inerrant?

KJV
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:

NKJV
But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.

NIV
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother*will be subject to judgment.

NASB
"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court;

ESV
“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother* will be liable to judgment;



When I was using the NIV, this verse bothered me a lot. At that time, I didn't know that it was rendered differently in other versions. I believed that every time I was angry, that I was sinning, which is certainly not true, or else our Savior sinned when He became angry.

So there you have 2 completely opposing doctrines. How can you say that all versions are inerrant?

I have been using the NIV since 1980 and I have never believed experiencing anger meant I was sinning. As I was reading the NIV, when I first got it, I would pause and read every footnote. So, I learned that there were different Greek texts - some had the phrase without a cause and some did not have the phrase. I also read all the cross references I could. I found Ps. 4:4 that tells you not to sin when you are angry. Paul repeats this in Ephesians 4:26. I saw that it was indeed possible to experience the emotion of anger and not sin. I learned not to build my belief system on one verse or phrase, but to build it on the entire whole of scripture. Strong's Exhaustive Concordence Of The Bible has helped a great deal in this area. I can use it to read every verse where the word I am looking up occurs in the Bible.

 

[Amy.G]

I have been using the NIV since 1980 and I have never believed experiencing anger meant I was sinning. As I was reading the NIV, when I first got it, I would pause and read every footnote. So, I learned that there were different Greek texts - some had the phrase without a cause and some did not have the phrase. I also read all the cross references I could. I found Ps. 4:4 that tells you not to sin when you are angry. Paul repeats this in Ephesians 4:26. I saw that it was indeed possible to experience the emotion of anger and not sin. I learned not to build my belief system on one verse or phrase, but to build it on the entire whole of scripture. Strong's Exhaustive Concordence Of The Bible has helped a great deal in this area. I can use it to read every verse where the word I am looking up occurs in the Bible.

Why would you use Strong's or even a commentary on a clear cut verse like "whoever is angry, is in danger of THE judgment?

Is that verse inerrant in the NIV? Is it "more accurate" as so many claim?

See, that is the problem. The average person does not have a clue that the verse should be questioned. They don't know about different ancient texts. It's in the Bible right? It must be true. Surely they can trust what they read in the NIV, right?

In the case of footnotes, how do you know which is correct? The verse or the footnote?

 

[Trotter]

I cannot imagine them treating translation as lightly as you do.

You obviously don't know squat about me. I do not treat translation lightly at all. To undertake translating God's word is a monumental task and is well beyond my meager skills. I would have to study for many, many years to even become qualified to do so. But there are quite a number of people in the world who are qualified to do just that because of both their education and their spiritual maturity. Translating God's word did not stop after 1611, nor did men become incapable of accurately translating God's word from that point forward.

So all this debate is meaningless, it comes down to whether a person believes God has preserved the scriptures or not.

Baloney, my argument is logical and plain old common sense. God either preserved his word or not. If God did preserve his word, then the question becomes "where is it?".

I don't know any here who would say that God has not preserved His word. I haven't said it, nor has anyone else. As for where it is, I have it sitting right here beside me. I have an ESV, NKJV, KJV, NASB, ASB, NIV, HCSB, Geneva, KJV 1611, and RSV either within arm's reach or a single click away.

Oh, which one is God's word? ALL OF THEM. Nice and simple. Each one is God's word. Each one (except for the different editions of the KJV) were translated by different people at different times, but each one is God's inerrant word. None of them are identical (even the KJV editions), but they are all His word.

I have no problem believing the scriptures can be translated into other languages. What I am saying is that you cannot have two versions of English that are very different and say they are the same and both are inerrant. That is ridiculous.

Yes, you actually can and it is not ridiculous at all. How many ways can you tell someone that you are going to the store? I can think of several off the top of my head. Each one says the same thing in a different way, yet each one is true.

You are hung up in the "things that are different are not the same" sand trap. No translation will be identical to the KJV. Evn the various editions/versions of the KJV are not identical. If a translation WAS identical it would just be a copy of the KJV. And yet you want to argue that the KJV is the zenith of English translations... and you only have your personal conviction to back it up.

I am fine with that... but your conviction is not my conviction, nor do I care for you or any other KJVO talking down about me and my own convictions. I go to church and sit beside several who would never open any other bible than a KJV, but they are not trying to condemn anyone who does use a different translation. Our pastor uses an ESV and they are fine with that as they see that they say the same thing in every service.

That you want to hold to the KJV is fine and dandy. Some of us do not hold strictly to it... but no one is telling you that the KJV is not God's inerrant word or that the KJV is not God's whole word. Why? Because we believe it IS God's word and is inerrant, just as other translations are as well. We do not condemn you or your choice but you seem to want to condemn us and our choice.

 

[SolaSaint]

I'm with you here TC, I don't feel the church is about building doctrine upon one verse of scripture. We must examine scripture in light of the rest of scripture. :thumbsup:

 

[Rippon]

Which of these versions is inerrant?



NIV
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother*will be subject to judgment.

A better question should be :Which is more accurate?

When I was using the NIV, this verse bothered me a lot. At that time, I didn't know that it was rendered differently in other versions. I believed that every time I was angry, that I was sinning, which is certainly not true,

According to the NET notes manuscript evidence favors its exclusion and that it does not commend itself as original.

Philip W. Comfort in his excellent book : New Testament Text And Translation Commentary says that the qualifer of "without cause" must have started around the beginning of the third century. He goes on to say that one manuscript frrom the second-century doesn't include this word (in the Greek its one word). (p.11)Text "B" known as Vaticanus from the 4th century doesn't include it, nor does Sinaiticus also from the fourth century.

or else our Savior sinned when He became angry.

Don't try to apply what Christ did to sinful mortals. Whenver Christ was angry it wasn't tainted with sin. When God refers to Himself as being a Jealous God -- He wasn't sinning. But when we are jealous -- we sin.

 

[olefundybob]

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.

I have found that all the promises regarding the preservation of God's word are in the NASV. Therefore I must conclude that it is the preserved version that is God's word for today. Is that what you believe also? or do you have some scripture that names a version?
I have not been able to find scripture pointing to a version. Have you found any? That would be helpful so we could be dogmatic. I think the Dogpatch version of the 1960s is also inspired. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Rippon]

I have found that all the promises regarding the preservation of God's word are in the NASV. Therefore I must conclude that it is the preserved version that is God's word for today. Is that what you believe also? or do you have some scripture that names a version?
I have not been able to find scripture pointing to a version. Have you found any? That would be helpful so we could be dogmatic. I think the Dogpatch version of the 1960s is also inspired. :smilewinkgrin:

The version you are speaking about is "The Cotton Patch, not the Dogpatch.:laugh:

Hey, welcome to the BB.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

We have a problem with words here. How do we define 'preservation.'

One side says that preservation means that God preserves His word for His people in faithful translations of His word in various languages and at various times.

The other side says that preservation means that God only preserves His word in one translation, or possibly in one translation per language.

Faith has nothing to do with it. Both sides have faith. The choice is one based on, hopefully, prayer, research, and careful study.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

We have a problem with words here. How do we define 'preservation.'

One side says that preservation means that God preserves His word for His people in faithful translations of His word in various languages and at various times.

The other side says that preservation means that God only preserves His word in one translation, or possibly in one translation per language.

Faith has nothing to do with it. Both sides have faith. The choice is one based on, hopefully, prayer, research, and careful study.

and the delemma is you still end up with 2 choices.

 

[Winman]

I don't know any here who would say that God has not preserved His word. I haven't said it, nor has anyone else. As for where it is, I have it sitting right here beside me. I have an ESV, NKJV, KJV, NASB, ASB, NIV, HCSB, Geneva, KJV 1611, and RSV either within arm's reach or a single click away.

Oh, which one is God's word? ALL OF THEM. Nice and simple. Each one is God's word. Each one (except for the different editions of the KJV) were translated by different people at different times, but each one is God's inerrant word. None of them are identical (even the KJV editions), but they are all His word.

Well, this is an impasse. There is no way I will ever agree that versions that are very different in content call all be inerrant. The MVs are missing many verses shown in the KJV. If one of the MVs is inerrant (there could only be one as they are all very different from each other), then the KJV must be corrupt.

I don't understand how anyone can make this illogical argument. Inerrant means without error.

It is not that the MVs are written in modern language. It is not that they are saying the same thing in another way, they say things that are contrary to each other in meaning and understanding.

For example, here is Luke 2:33 in the KJV and NIV

KJV- "And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him."

NIV- "The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him."

Joseph was not Jesus's father, but the NIV could lead a person to believe he was.

And Amy demonstrated what I was saying, the content of the various versions of scripture are very different and can lead to very different conclusions. To the layman who reads the MVs, they could be led to believe (as Amy herself says she was) that it is a sin to be angry for any reason.

Now that is a bigger problem than just the reader getting the wrong impression. If getting angry under any circumstance is sin, then Jesus sinned when he cast the money changers out of the temple. I would call that a major difference affecting doctrine, perhaps you would not.

So how you can argue that all these versions are the inerrant word of God and give the same meaning is beyond me.

 

[TC]

Why would you use Strong's or even a commentary on a clear cut verse like "whoever is angry, is in danger of THE judgment?

Is this the only verse in the Bible on anger? When I study the subject of anger I want to know what the Bible says about anger from beginning to end. So, I use Strong's to see every verse in the Bible that has the word anger in it and can then take the time to read them. Why would you not want to do that?

Is that verse inerrant in the NIV? Is it "more accurate" as so many claim?

Yes, the NIV is innerrant and accurate.

See, that is the problem. The average person does not have a clue that the verse should be questioned. They don't know about different ancient texts. It's in the Bible right? It must be true. Surely they can trust what they read in the NIV, right?

Are you against education or studying? And yes, I do trust the NIV. I have used it since 1980 - thanks for asking. I also use other versions including the KJV.

In the case of footnotes, how do you know which is correct? The verse or the footnote?

The English translations are made from Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts. We know that there are varients in the original language manuscripts. Therefore, IMO it is just plain honest to point out these varients when making a translation from them. The KJV translators said so in the translator to the reader (which is missing from most modern copies of the KJV) and I believe they would have included many more footnotes/sidenotes than they did. They had restriction placed on them from others that did not want any footnotes in the English Bible.

 

[olefundybob]

Excuse me, i guess i was confused by the fact that my dog got hold of my cotton patch version.

 

[Winman]

I have found that all the promises regarding the preservation of God's word are in the NASV. Therefore I must conclude that it is the preserved version that is God's word for today. Is that what you believe also? or do you have some scripture that names a version?
I have not been able to find scripture pointing to a version. Have you found any? That would be helpful so we could be dogmatic. I think the Dogpatch version of the 1960s is also inspired. :smilewinkgrin:

This is a poor and illogical argument. For the most part the KJV and MVs agree, often word for word. The same could be said for the Jehovah's Witnesses's corrupt version of scripture. The question is, are all of these versions inerrant? Inerrant means without error. I don't believe any honest person could say that in sincerety.

God's word doesn't have to point to one specific version of scripture. He promised to preserve his word. That tells all of us that his true and infallible word will always be available, and it can be identified.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Here God warns against adding or taking away from his word. How in the world can any person possibly know if they are adding or taking away from God's word unless God's accurate and inerrant word can be known and identified? You can't.

And as far as what you think, I can't be responsible for that.

 

[Winman]

The only argument you MVs are making here is that all the versions are basically the same. This can easily be shown not to be true. Here is a brief, but good article showing how doctrine is affected by the many various versions.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/doctrine.txt

 

[franklinmonroe]

... My question to you all is "do you believe the bible is inerrant?" I mean the original autographs and not what we have today, ...

Yes, inspired written revelation from God is inerrent. Since God is the Author, His work could not contain any error.