Is Bible Inerrancy an essential?

[agedman]

It is important to remember that some of the KJV only groups use terminology, such as inerrant, often in a more limited sense.

There are those churches that will exclude from membership any who would desire to use anything other than the KJV. They froth long and much over words such as inerrancy and infallible and apply it to the KJV as exclusively having those qualities.

Imo, sometimes the statements from such have almost an idolatrous stance.

In fact, I have read and heard that if one is not saved using a certain version, that person cannot be saved.

Such teaching is just poorly supported upon faulty ground.

I am so greatly encouraged to read the responses from John of Japan and TCassidy that declare the truth.

Admittedly, at the first statement(s), I challenged, because I didn't take the time to consider, but reached for the reactionary and wrong conclusion. After following the thread, and reading the responses, I have absolutely no disagreement with either of these scholars, and am thankful for the light of understanding they are both sharing on this extremely important subject.

 

[TomLaPalm]

Proverbs 8:16 (KJV/Ben Chayyim) By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.

Proverbs 8:16 (ESV/Ben Asher) by me princes rule, and nobles, all who govern justly.

My literal translation of the Ben Asher text: By me kings reign, And rulers govern justly.

The difference being שׁופט צדק vice שׁפטי צֶדֶק.

That is why I made sure to include the word "derivatively." The vernacular translation is derived from the inspired words of the Hebrew and Greek autographs which have been preserved for us down through the ages of history. No translation, or manuscript, is inspired in the direct sense.

But you are comparing English, for us, what is the difference in the Hebrew you list?


(The Young's Literal has Pro 8:16 By me do chiefs rule, and nobles, All judges of the earth.)

Is "justly" added?

 

[TCassidy]

But you are comparing English, for us, what is the difference in the Hebrew you list?


(The Young's Literal has Pro 8:16 By me do chiefs rule, and nobles, All judges of the earth.)

Is "justly" added?

Uh, I stated it pretty clearly.

The difference being שׁופט צדק vice שׁפטי צֶדֶק.

So, as I indicated, the variant is between "of the earth" and "justly."

 

[evangelist6589]

It is important to remember that some of the KJV only groups use terminology, such as inerrant, often in a more limited sense.

There are those churches that will exclude from membership any who would desire to use anything other than the KJV. They froth long and much over words such as inerrancy and infallible and apply it to the KJV as exclusively having those qualities.

Imo, sometimes the statements from such have almost an idolatrous stance.

In fact, I have read and heard that if one is not saved using a certain version, that person cannot be saved.

Such teaching is just poorly supported upon faulty ground.

I am so greatly encouraged to read the responses from John of Japan and TCassidy that declare the truth.

Admittedly, at the first statement(s), I challenged, because I didn't take the time to consider, but reached for the reactionary and wrong conclusion. After following the thread, and reading the responses, I have absolutely no disagreement with either of these scholars, and am thankful for the light of understanding they are both sharing on this extremely important subject.

Scholars?? Who???

 

[TomLaPalm]

Uh, I stated it pretty clearly.

So, as I indicated, the variant is between "of the earth" and "justly."

I'm not questioning you statements, just relying on your knowledge

you find no reason for this variant? and you find it does not make any difference in meaning?

Can you tell from the Hebrew if these words are adjectives modifying the judges? , The verse subject seems to be God

 

[TCassidy]

שׁופט צדק means "soft justice."

שׁפטי צֶדֶק means "blah justice."

The word שׁפטי doesn't mean anything at all. But, the early versions, including the Syriac and especially the LXX believed it to be a corruption of אָֽרֶץ meaning "country" and thus translated it as "of the earth" with "earth" meaning the soil of the country Israel.

The problem is that the word was more probably a corruption of the word "soft" meaning "soft" in the sense of gentle in contrast to the "hard" or false justice of the wicked.

But either way it does not introduce a falsehood into the meaning. By God's decree, all the (righteous) judges (of the land) render (gentle) justice.

So, when Jacob ben Chayyim edited his Rabbinic Bible he went with the LXX and wrote "of the earth" and when Aaron ben Asher edited his Rabbinic Bible he stayed with the Hebrew and corrected the corruption to read "soft."

 

[TomLaPalm]

שׁופט צדק means "soft justice."

שׁפטי צֶדֶק means "blah justice."

The word שׁפטי doesn't mean anything at all. But, the early versions, including the Syriac and especially the LXX believed it to be a corruption of אָֽרֶץ meaning "country" and thus translated it as "of the earth" with "earth" meaning the soil of the country Israel.

The problem is that the word was more probably a corruption of the word "soft" meaning "soft" in the sense of gentle in contrast to the "hard" or false justice of the wicked.

But either way it does not introduce a falsehood into the meaning. By God's decree, all the (righteous) judges (of the land) render (gentle) justice.

So, when Jacob ben Chayyim edited his Rabbinic Bible he went with the LXX and wrote "of the earth" and when Aaron ben Asher edited his Rabbinic Bible he stayed with the Hebrew and corrected the corruption to read "soft."

LXX ? The Septuagint? That is Greek, Why go from Hebrew to Greek to Hebrew? That would have to change words or meanings some

From Chabad .org Mishlei 8:16
Through me princes govern, and nobles, yea, all judges of righteousness.

טזבִּי שָׂרִים יָשֹרוּ וּנְדִיבִים כָּל שֹׁפְטֵי צֶדֶק:

Is this different from the Rabbis versions you mentioned?

 

[TCassidy]

טזבִּי שָׂרִים יָשֹרוּ וּנְדִיבִים כָּל שֹׁפְטֵי צֶדֶק:

Your quote does not contain the scribal error, שֹׁפְטֵי צֶדֶק.

Some manuscripts (and texts) read "justice" ( צֶדֶק ) and others read "country" ( אָֽרֶץ )

In my opinion "justice" is the correct reading.

 

[TCassidy]

This thread is supposed to be about inerrancy, not exegesis. Let's get back to the subject.

 

[TomLaPalm]

When the Greek is included it became an exegesis discussion. I was trying to remove any translation issues from consideration that are in the discrepancies listed.

I might have copied the Hebrew verse incorrectly, Please feel free to visit that site and check my posts.

The Hebrew rabbis copied from some original text line, can you determine if it is one you mentioned? It would seem the OT from the Hebrew Rabbi's are accurate

 

[agedman]

Scholars?? Who???

Both men, John of Japan and TCassidy, have not only a thorough language background but both have translation experience that goes beyond the typical preacher and into that of scholarship.

Both have or are continuing as instructors in the higher education fields which has the obligations of one who is a scholar.

An example of there scholarship is seen on this thread.

Therefore, it is appropriate for them to be considered as scholars.

Do you disagree?

 

[evangelist6589]

Both men, John of Japan and TCassidy, have not only a thorough language background but both have translation experience that goes beyond the typical preacher and into that of scholarship.

Both have or are continuing as instructors in the higher education fields which has the obligations of one who is a scholar.

An example of there scholarship is seen on this thread.

Therefore, it is appropriate for them to be considered as scholars.

Do you disagree?

I do not however other scholars disagree with their views.

 

[agedman]

I do not however other scholars disagree with their views.

Of course!!!

A scholar does not expect everyone to agree with them. Nor should that be the expectation. Why should they?

A scholar has very sharp distinctions in which others may compare and contrast there own thinking and draw conclusions of which they may show the cause of disagreement and agreement. They posses a wide range of understanding even towards that which they may not hold as a view, because part of their scholarship has obliged investing time, effort, and resources to be able to speak with such authority upon a view as to bring the awareness even to those that oppose them that they can state accurately that oppositing view.

For example: TCassidy and I do not agree in every area, but that does not diminish his authority as a scholar. Rather, it allows me the opportunity to show where we agree and at what specific areas we may have opinioned discussions and even areas of tension. He can and has restated my thinking in such manner as to show he knows the perspective, and can and does bring insightful contrast.

J of J has also shown that ability, too.

Scholarship is not just the acquiring of knowledge but the use and dissemination. I have been around a great many professors and teachers that did not have or had not risen to the level of scholar. Such people may posses knowledge, but it was not profound, nor grately usable by students other than in basic course work.

Look back at this thread and the skill TCassidy has used in showing both understanding and drawing distinction with appropriate correction for the reader to enhance there own understanding of the OP.

In other threads J of J has shown those same skills.

Agreement does not denote a scholar. Rather a true scholar will more often be a tool of disagreement especially by the disagreeable.

Hawking has been a noteworthy scholar, but there are those of renown who disagreed with some of his views. Not many years ago he apologized to the scientific community because he came to understand some of those who opposed him were right and his thinking had to be modified.

A scholar is not threatened by folks challenging and making persuasive argument in opposition. Such allows the scholar to reexamine the supporting structures and look for areas of needed adjustment.

I would allow for this small distinction. There is a slight difference between scholar and eminent scholar. It resides in the areas of peer review. Not so much in esteeme but in the publishing of the scholarship, and the ability among peer scholars to validate that which is published.




Trust this is helpful.

 

[John of Japan]

Not playing games. "Internal inerrancy" seems to me to be the game. The inerrancy games continue.

You are not answering my posts. Tell me why I am wrong to believe in internal inerrancy and not be bothered by textual variants. Or failing that, tell me one single error of fact (history, science, theology, whatever) that occurred between the original manuscripts and the copies.

 

[agedman]

You are not answering my posts. Tell me why I am wrong to believe in internal inerrancy and not be bothered by textual variants. Or failing that, tell me one single error of fact (history, science, theology, whatever) that occurred between the original manuscripts and the copies.

True the Psalmist wrote, "Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven."

Perhaps the "variants" question is aligned in some people's thinking and view. By way of clarification, perhaps a bit off topic illustration may help - in this instance, the canonization of the Scriptures may show how the thought process can modify how one considers an issue.

When working through the processes of canonization, one of the problems is how things "fit." There are 73 (I think) books in the RCC but 66 in the protestant. Why the difference? In the case of Luther, he argued for Ester to be placed into that which he called the "apocrypha" and he didn't consider books such as Hebrew, James, and Revelation were to be part of the cannon.

So, what was the problem? Doctrine.

Luther considered that there were some doctrinal considerations that would exclude some of the books, however, (imo) Luther's problem was that of preconceptions and "reading into" the literature from a mindset that was predisposed to that perspective.

To this day, doctrine plays a big role in how one views many Scriptures.

Therefore, it is also the mindset, perspective, view... that may make one take the textual variants and lift them to question the inerrancy of the whole.

One may acknowledge the variants, and not compromise the integrity of the truthfulness, or one may question the integrity of truthfulness based on finding variants.

It is the matter of perspective.

 

[John of Japan]

You are not answering my posts. Tell me why I am wrong to believe in internal inerrancy and not be bothered by textual variants. Or failing that, tell me one single error of fact (history, science, theology, whatever) that occurred between the original manuscripts and the copies.

Let me clarify my own point here. My position on NT textual criticism is Byzantine priority, meaning in this context that when I hold the Byz. textform Greek NT, or even the TR, that is where I espouse inerrancy, not in the critical editions (UBS and Nestles nowadays).

 

[John of Japan]

True the Psalmist wrote, "Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven."

Perhaps the "variants" question is aligned in some people's thinking and view. By way of clarification, perhaps a bit off topic illustration may help - in this instance, the canonization of the Scriptures may show how the thought process can modify how one considers an issue.

When working through the processes of canonization, one of the problems is how things "fit." There are 73 (I think) books in the RCC but 66 in the protestant. Why the difference? In the case of Luther, he argued for Ester to be placed into that which he called the "apocrypha" and he didn't consider books such as Hebrew, James, and Revelation were to be part of the cannon.

So, what was the problem? Doctrine.

Luther considered that there were some doctrinal considerations that would exclude some of the books, however, (imo) Luther's problem was that of preconceptions and "reading into" the literature from a mindset that was predisposed to that perspective.

To this day, doctrine plays a big role in how one views many Scriptures.

Therefore, it is also the mindset, perspective, view... that may make one take the textual variants and lift them to question the inerrancy of the whole.

One may acknowledge the variants, and not compromise the integrity of the truthfulness, or one may question the integrity of truthfulness based on finding variants.

It is the matter of perspective.

I get your drift here, but of course presuppositions don't excuse sloppy thinking.

 

[TCassidy]

Let me clarify my own point here. My position on NT textual criticism is Byzantine priority, meaning in this context that when I hold the Byz. textform Greek NT, or even the TR, that is where I espouse inerrancy, not in the critical editions (UBS and Nestles nowadays).

I, being a Byzantine Priority type guy, agree. (In the interests of full disclosure I count Maurice Robinson as a friend with whom I have spent several hours talking of just these issues over a protracted lunch.)

But I even include UBS and NA as being inerrant (for the most part, with a couple well known exceptions) as they, again, for the most part, agree with the Byzantine textform which I accept as the standard.

 

[John of Japan]

I, being a Byzantine Priority type guy, agree. (In the interests of full disclosure I count Maurice Robinson as a friend with whom I have spent several hours talking of just these issues over a protracted lunch.)

I'm glad to have gotten to know him through my son, who was his grader several years ago. We've had him here at our seminary to lecture on Byz. Pri.

But I even include UBS and NA as being inerrant (for the most part, with a couple well known exceptions) as they, again, for the most part, agree with the Byzantine textform which I accept as the standard.

It would be fun to go down that rabbit trail, but....

 

[Craigbythesea]

I believe the NWT is a poorly translated example of the word of God in English.

I believe that the NWT is a willful and deliberate modification of the Bible to bring it into harmony with the theology of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York. Therefore, the NWT is more accurately called a [Rule violation edited] than a translation. Indeed, without any textual basis of any kind, it changes in many hundreds of places what the Bible really says. The most frequent kind of these changes are the 237 instances in which the NWT inserts into the New Testament the name Jehovah even though the Tetragrammaton YHWH occurs 6,828 times in the Hebrew Old Testament but never in the Greek New Testament.

The NWT translators deliberately mis-translated the phrase καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. Note the word order places Θεὸς in the emphatic position. They claim, due to the lack of the definite article, that the indefinite article should be supplied. Under normal circumstances that would be correct, but in this case, with Θεὸς in the emphatic position, the actual meaning is "and the Word was (most emphatically) God!"

The “translators” (http://www.freeminds.org/history/NWTauthors.htm) of the NWT believe, with the teaching of the Society, that Jesus is not God. They base this belief upon such New Testament passages as Mark 10:18, John 20:17, and Eph. 4:5-6. Since in John 1:1 we find the anarthrous use of Θεὸςwhich can be translated either as “God” or “a God,” the translators of the NWT translate it as “a God” in keeping with their theology. TCassidy’s claim that the word order indicates that it should be translated as “God” is incorrect. Others also maintain, based upon their misapplication of the Granville Sharp Rule (https://bible.org/article/granville-sharp-model-evangelical-scholarship-and-social-activism), that that it should be translated as “God.” However, the correct translation cannot be determined by any rule of grammar, but rather by what John has to say about the divinity of Christ in other passages.

The first 18 verses of John 1 are known as the Prologue, and it is commonly believed to be based upon a hymn composed in the Johannine church. A huge amount of research has been invested in the study of these 18 verses, and especially v. 1.

But one deliberate mistranslation does not negate the truth found in the rest of the NWT. I have used the JW's own NWT to show the Deity of Christ and win a JW to the Lord.

Please see my comments above, and to those comments I add that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York (the publishing arm of the Watch Tower [note the change from one word to two in “Watch Tower” Bible and Tract Society of Philadelphia) has published four editions of the NWT (1961, 1981, 1984, and 2013). The 2013 edition is a major revision of the 1984 edition, and reflects a change in the Society’s philosophy regarding how the Bible should be translated. The important issue for this thread is whether TCassidy’s opinion regarding any translation of the Bible being an “inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved bible” is an opinion supported by objective facts—and obviously it is not!

(In the event you are interested have them compare Isaiah 40:3 with Matthew 3:3, Numbers 21:5-6 with 1 Corinthians 10:9, and John 1:3 with Genesis 2:4. Those verses make it clear that the Jehovah of the OT is identical to the Jesus of the NT.)

Isaiah 40:3. A voice cries out:
“In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord,
make straight in the desert a highway for our God.” (NRSV)

Matthew 3:3. This is the one of whom the prophet Isaiah spoke when he said,
“The voice of one crying out in the wilderness:
“Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight.’”" (NRSV)

A comparison of these two verses using the RSV does NOT “make it clear that the Jehovah of the OT is identical to the Jesus of the NT.” The RSV and NRSV are based upon a very different translation philosophy than the KJV, NKJV, ESV, or the NASB and most other translations—and consequently there is a marked difference in the theology presented. Which translation philosophy has resulted in giving us the Word of God in English—and which has not!