Originally posted by Bookborn:
When I asked you to list your infallbile, inerrant word of God for Matthew 1:1, I wondered if you would choose from your library one of your favorite Greek texts (Nestle Aland 26th ed, or Tregelles, Trinitarian Bible Society, Westcott & Hort, or something) and put this verse in Greek.
I could have, or I could have used French or German or Cree. However, since we both speak English, I figured that would be easiest.
Help me understand your position. Are you saying all English versions are infallible and inerrant, no English versions are infallible and inerrant, all Greek texts are infallible and inerrant, or no Greek text is infallible and inerrant?
I believe terms like "infallible" and "inerrant" are to be applied to specific aspects of a Bible, not just a Bible as a whole. What I mean by this is that often in these discussions, people think a Bible is either inerrant, or it isn't, period - when in fact in can be inerrant in one aspect and errant in another. For example, a typo in one edition of a Bible means the "ink" is errant, but the inerrant message remains the same as an edition without the typo. Another example: one Bible may read "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ" in Matt 1:1, another read "This is a record of the ancestors of Jesus the Messiah", another "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ", "A roll of the birth of Jesus Christ", etc., and despite the differences in ink, the message remains the same. So, to answer your question directly, all English versions are infallible and inerrant
in their message if properly understood, but no English versions are infallible and inerrant
in the sense of the ink on the paper.
I was hoping you would identify with specificity your perfect Bible or admit that no such entitity exists for the body of Christ (the church) today...
I named a specific Bible. I said "The Geneva Bible, for one"
Is it possible you don't have all of God's words, or too many of God's words, or some words of man/devils that you think are God's words?
There are many of God's words which I do not have (e.g. see Mark 9:4, John 21:25, etc.). However, I believe I have the words that he intends for me to have.
Are you familiar with the fact that all texts are not the same and all versions are not the same?
Acutely, just as I am aware that all KJVs are not the same, yet I can accept any edition of the KJV as the word of God despite these errant (in the ink) differences, and the differences between any edition of the KJV and all the Bibles before it (in any language).
Now for AV's post:
It is directly relevant, since the church is the pillar and ground of the truth.
Which is one of the many reasons I reject KJV-onlyism - because the church (the pillar and ground of the truth) rejects KJV-onlyism.
"I don't know exactly how the church accepts a text, but it's largely to do with how a text agrees with texts the church already accepts."
This just begs the question, in an explicit manner I might add. Do you really think the question of the canon is individually subjective?
No, I simply meant that individuals are free to accept the canon or not. If they do not, they go against the church, the pillar and ground of the truth.
As far as the variation question, I don't think the English language has changed that much.
Did it change much between 1605 and 1611? If not, why don't we simply use the Bible they used in 1605 and accept it as the word of God?