Can be infallible without having to be inerrant. If so, not essential.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is Bible Inerrancy an essential?
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
- Status
Can be infallible without having to be inerrant. If so, not essential.
One variant, that's all it takes. Any variants?
What is an infallible error of fact?
Well, let's have some fun...
I accept the ETS statement on inerrancy, that it applies strictly to the original autographs of Scripture. That said, as I talk about this specifically with people, I note that inerrancy in our current translations of Scriptures is better understood as infallibility. That is, the Bible, as we have it, is without error in teaching and does not contradict itself internally.
I accept the ETS statement on inerrancy, that it applies strictly to the original autographs of Scripture. That said, as I talk about this specifically with people, I note that inerrancy in our current translations of Scriptures is better understood as infallibility. That is, the Bible, as we have it, is without error in teaching and does not contradict itself internally.
Not being the same thing as inerrant, I have and actually affirm the infallibility of the bible, no argument from me. My issue is that variants exist, they are real things, a variant means both can't be right. To say the bible is inerrant in the originals is fine, I suppose. Can't verify this, it's a theory because we don't have the originals. This to me moves it out of the essential category.
There are reasons to choose one over the other and these variants are on very minor things, not impacting the entirety of the message of the gospel. This makes the bible infallible, not inerrant. The bible is a reliable, trustworthy written record, "carried along by the Holy Spirit", of the revelation of Jesus.
There are reasons to choose one over the other and these variants are on very minor things, not impacting the entirety of the message of the gospel. This makes the bible infallible, not inerrant. The bible is a reliable, trustworthy written record, "carried along by the Holy Spirit", of the revelation of Jesus.
What variant introduces an error of fact into the bible?
You're not paying attention. Look at Post #30.
Come on, quit playing games. Your post #65 is irrelevant to my position.
My post #30 (since you apparently either did not read it or did not understand it) makes the point that I am not discussing variant readings here, but internal inerrancy in the same way that it is usually discussed--which is not a discussion about variant readings.
In regards to inerrancy, it bothers me not in the slightest that there are variant readings. In the edited Greek NT and Hebrew OT that I have, there are no errors of doctrine, science, history or anything else.
Amen! The History is inerrant history. The Promises are inerrant promises. And the Prophecy is inerrant prophecy!
And not ONE variant changes the history, the promises, or the prophecy. Not ONE!
Not playing games. "Internal inerrancy" seems to me to be the game. The inerrancy games continue.
the apographs don't exist anymore.
So basically you claim to believe in a non-existent inerrant Bible that you cannot hold in your hand.
Just a technical point. The original manuscripts, penned by the Apostles, are called "autographs" or "autographa" (αυτόγραφα). It was the copies of the autographs which were called "apographs" or "apographa" (απόγραφα).
Jordan I am not going to say that the KJV is God's only translation. Sorry I have read the King James Only Controversy by James White among other books and have not been fooled for that lie.
Jordan is correct. If you (erroneously) apply the word "inerrant" only to the autographs you make the mistake of invalidating every textform and every bible based on those textforms regardless of which translation it is.
That is why John and I have affirmed over and over again that "inerrant" applies to the entire textucopia - all of the manuscript evidence supports the conclusion that the bible, regardless of textform or translation, is without error of fact.
I prefer the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text and the Byzantine Greek text for various reasons too lengthy to go into in this post, but the Ben Asher text differs from the Ben Chayyim text in only 8 places that would have an effect on translation: Proverbs 8:16; Isaiah 10:16; Isaiah 27:2; Isaiah 38:14; Jeremiah 34:1; Ezekiel 30:18; Zephaniah 3:15; and Malachi 1:12. And none of those variants introduces an error of fact into the text.
And the Alexandrian text differs from the Byzantine textform in only about a half page worth of words and most of those are minor spelling differences. There is NO major doctrine affected by textual variants.
Therefore the inerrant nature of the text is not affected by copyist errors or textual variants.
Proper understanding of the meaning of terms is absolutely essential to the proper understanding of this very important issue. Either we have a bible we can trust, or we don't.
It is like the old riddle, "If you call a dog's tail a "leg" how many legs would a dog have?"
The answer is "four." You can call the tail anything you please, but a tail is a tail and a leg is a leg.
You can use any term you please, but our bible is without error of fact of history, prophecy, promise, or any other thing. Our bible is 100% reliable and can be trusted wholly, without exception.
The bible I hold in my hand, whether it be my old KJV, my newer NKJV, my Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine Greek text, or my Bomberg Hebrew text, or any of the other 25 or so bibles in various languages and translations, is (by derivation) the inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved word of God and can be trusted to do exactly as God intended it to do.
We have either a (derivatively), inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved bible, or we have an expired (expired means "dead"), errant, untrustworthy, utterly useless "bible."
Take your pick. Me? I preach and teach from the living word of God, not a dead, error laden, work of fiction.
Do you believe the the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation is inerrant, inspired and infallible, when it mistranslates John 1:1 to say Jesus was "a" god?Jordan is correct. If you (erroneously) apply the word "inerrant" only to the autographs you make the mistake of invalidating every textform and every bible based on those textforms regardless of which translation it is.
That is why John and I have affirmed over and over again that "inerrant" applies to the entire textucopia - all of the manuscript evidence supports the conclusion that the bible, regardless of textform or translation, is without error of fact.
I prefer the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text and the Byzantine Greek text for various reasons too lengthy to go into in this post, but the Ben Asher text differs from the Ben Chayyim text in only 8 places that would have an effect on translation: Proverbs 8:16; Isaiah 10:16; Isaiah 27:2; Isaiah 38:14; Jeremiah 34:1; Ezekiel 30:18; Zephaniah 3:15; and Malachi 1:12. And none of those variants introduces an error of fact into the text.
And the Alexandrian text differs from the Byzantine textform in only about a half page worth of words and most of those are minor spelling differences. There is NO major doctrine affected by textual variants.
Therefore the inerrant nature of the text is not affected by copyist errors or textual variants.
Proper understanding of the meaning of terms is absolutely essential to the proper understanding of this very important issue. Either we have a bible we can trust, or we don't.
It is like the old riddle, "If you call a dog's tail a "leg" how many legs would a dog have?"
The answer is "four." You can call the tail anything you please, but a tail is a tail and a leg is a leg.
You can use any term you please, but our bible is without error of fact of history, prophecy, promise, or any other thing. Our bible is 100% reliable and can be trusted wholly, without exception.
The bible I hold in my hand, whether it be my old KJV, my newer NKJV, my Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine Greek text, or my Bomberg Hebrew text, or any of the other 25 or so bibles in various languages and translations, is (by derivation) the inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved word of God and can be trusted to do exactly as God intended it to do.
We have either a (derivatively), inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved bible, or we have an expired (expired means "dead"), errant, untrustworthy, utterly useless "bible."
Take your pick. Me? I preach and teach from the living word of God, not a dead, error laden, work of fiction.
Do you believe the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate is inerrant and inspired when it uses the word penance instead of repentance?
If I take a New Testament and decided that I want to replace the book of Matthew and insert a chapter from the Koran into it, that it is still the inspired and inerrant word of God?
Your position is contradictory, you claim basically that anything that calls itself a Bible can be considered the inspired and infallible word of God?
Jordan is correct. If you (erroneously) apply the word "inerrant" only to the autographs you make the mistake of invalidating every textform and every bible based on those textforms regardless of which translation it is.
That is why John and I have affirmed over and over again that "inerrant" applies to the entire textucopia - all of the manuscript evidence supports the conclusion that the bible, regardless of textform or translation, is without error of fact.
I prefer the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text and the Byzantine Greek text for various reasons too lengthy to go into in this post, but the Ben Asher text differs from the Ben Chayyim text in only 8 places that would have an effect on translation: Proverbs 8:16; Isaiah 10:16; Isaiah 27:2; Isaiah 38:14; Jeremiah 34:1; Ezekiel 30:18; Zephaniah 3:15; and Malachi 1:12. And none of those variants introduces an error of fact into the text.
And the Alexandrian text differs from the Byzantine textform in only about a half page worth of words and most of those are minor spelling differences. There is NO major doctrine affected by textual variants.
Therefore the inerrant nature of the text is not affected by copyist errors or textual variants.
Proper understanding of the meaning of terms is absolutely essential to the proper understanding of this very important issue. Either we have a bible we can trust, or we don't.
It is like the old riddle, "If you call a dog's tail a "leg" how many legs would a dog have?"
The answer is "four." You can call the tail anything you please, but a tail is a tail and a leg is a leg.
You can use any term you please, but our bible is without error of fact of history, prophecy, promise, or any other thing. Our bible is 100% reliable and can be trusted wholly, without exception.
The bible I hold in my hand, whether it be my old KJV, my newer NKJV, my Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine Greek text, or my Bomberg Hebrew text, or any of the other 25 or so bibles in various languages and translations, is (by derivation) the inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved word of God and can be trusted to do exactly as God intended it to do.
We have either a (derivatively), inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved bible, or we have an expired (expired means "dead"), errant, untrustworthy, utterly useless "bible."
Take your pick. Me? I preach and teach from the living word of God, not a dead, error laden, work of fiction.
Although the dog leg example was sufficient, you listed 8 verses where differences seem to occur, pick one and show us the negligible difference.
I hold translations , as the work of man, cannot be inspired. But I also believe , men wholly surrendered and led by the Holy Spirit, can translate and maintain the original meaning.
We all agree bad translators and translations hinder the perceptions we have of God and are a work by the devil.
so choose one than can be discussed here.
Thanks
Jordan is correct. If you (erroneously) apply the word "inerrant" only to the autographs you make the mistake of invalidating every textform and every bible based on those textforms regardless of which translation it is.
That is why John and I have affirmed over and over again that "inerrant" applies to the entire textucopia - all of the manuscript evidence supports the conclusion that the bible, regardless of textform or translation, is without error of fact.
I prefer the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text and the Byzantine Greek text for various reasons too lengthy to go into in this post, but the Ben Asher text differs from the Ben Chayyim text in only 8 places that would have an effect on translation: Proverbs 8:16; Isaiah 10:16; Isaiah 27:2; Isaiah 38:14; Jeremiah 34:1; Ezekiel 30:18; Zephaniah 3:15; and Malachi 1:12. And none of those variants introduces an error of fact into the text.
And the Alexandrian text differs from the Byzantine textform in only about a half page worth of words and most of those are minor spelling differences. There is NO major doctrine affected by textual variants.
Therefore the inerrant nature of the text is not affected by copyist errors or textual variants.
Proper understanding of the meaning of terms is absolutely essential to the proper understanding of this very important issue. Either we have a bible we can trust, or we don't.
It is like the old riddle, "If you call a dog's tail a "leg" how many legs would a dog have?"
The answer is "four." You can call the tail anything you please, but a tail is a tail and a leg is a leg.
You can use any term you please, but our bible is without error of fact of history, prophecy, promise, or any other thing. Our bible is 100% reliable and can be trusted wholly, without exception.
The bible I hold in my hand, whether it be my old KJV, my newer NKJV, my Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine Greek text, or my Bomberg Hebrew text, or any of the other 25 or so bibles in various languages and translations, is (by derivation) the inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved word of God and can be trusted to do exactly as God intended it to do.
We have either a (derivatively), inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved bible, or we have an expired (expired means "dead"), errant, untrustworthy, utterly useless "bible."
Take your pick. Me? I preach and teach from the living word of God, not a dead, error laden, work of fiction.
I am aware of this and agree, but Jordan thinks only the KJV translation is inerrant.
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.
I believe the NWT is a poorly translated example of the word of God in English. 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!"
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.
(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.)
It doesn't. It uses the word paenitentiae from paenitēns (“repenting”), present active participle of paeniteō (“regret, repent”).
Now you are just being silly. Which is usually a sign of desperation.
Please quote me saying any such thing. I said the variants in the historically accepted Hebrew and Greek manuscripts do not negate the trustworthiness of God's word.
- Status