What is Biblical Inerrancy?

[Ed Edwards]

1 Chronicles 21:6 (KJV1611 Edition):
But Leui and Beniamin counted hee not among them: for the kings word was abominable to Ioab.

Quoted above in post #53: 1 Chronicles 21:6 (Version, Edition unspecified):
//But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them: for the king's word was abominable to Joab. //

Goldie: Welcome to BB = Baptist Board.

Apparently there is a whole different language problem here. Above I've quoted directly from the KJV1611 Edition which is quite different from what ever you quoted. There are in fact, multiple variances among the KJVs.

Goldie: //As far as I've noted, it depends which version of the KJV Bible you are referring to, ... //

In your opinion, what does 'version of the KJV Bible' mean? IMHO, it means these three which I read 3 or more times per week each:

1. KJV1611 Edition (paper and electronic e-sword.com )
2. KJV1769 Family of Editions (paper and electronic - e-sword.com )
3. KJV1873 Edition (paper only)

Goldie: // // ... to my mind the Authorized or 1611 King James Bible is error free as it is the only Bible that is translated (taken from) directly from the Textus Receptus, ...//

Goldie: // ... whereas ALL other Bible versions are translated from Catholic translations of the Textus Receptus, and so are prone to error to varying degrees.

All other Bibles are NOT translated from Catholic translations of the Textus Receptus. In fact, the TR was NOT the source for the Catholaic translations. In fact, only the TR was NOT used for many transactions. All they had in 1505-1511 to translate the KJV is what we call the TR -- we are NOT really totally sure what they had, for the notes of the translators are gone missing. The Greek LXX (70 in Roman Numerals) - a translation of the Old Testament was also available to the translators of the KJV. The LXX dates from 200BC or later The Latin translation of both testaements dating from about AD 450 was also available.

Goldie: //Bible inerrancy means that The Bible's author is in fact the Holy Spirit (Holy Spirit inspired).//

Amen, Goldie -- exactly RIGHT ON! That is a good definition! Read my trailer.

Goldie: // God only wrote one Bible.//
Strange, there is one God, one Spirit, one Baptism -- but God didn't mention 'only one Bible'???

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Deacon,
That was truly remarkable reading and I think that I will remember that I read that because of a friends bidding on the BB.
One point though, as I understand the issue, the LXX was not used in the translation of the AV 1611. Please help me with this. If it was not the Loosely translated LXX does not impact the Inerrancy issue of the AV.

Dale,
I have read White's book. I cannot comment today because I read it about three years ago.

Lastly, no one is answering my question. If you believe the many translations of the modern bilbles, how does one reconcile the incredeble number of inconsistencies found in them when they are reviewed side by side. You say they are the veritable Word of God? How can they be so?
Why didn't God preserve His Word on the triune Godhead in some of the translations? (the standard being not specifically, but idealy "jot and tittle") This is just one subject, I may ask about more in the future.

Bartimaeus

Jesus was referring to hebrew law with the Jot and Tittle. He is talking about letter marks like yod. Just a point.

 

[Bartimaeus]

1611 KJV also had the apocryphal writing. And as far as the Textus Receptus:

Where did you get your quote and who were you quoting?

Bartimaeus

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Where did you get your quote and who were you quoting?

Bartimaeus

http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/TR.html

 

[Bartimaeus]

I appreciate that page. I read it in it's entirty. Now... Who wrote it?

What site did it come from?

Bartimaeus

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I appreciate that page. I read it in it's entirty. Now... Who wrote it?

What site did it come from?

Bartimaeus

Conceived by Rich Elliott
of Simon Greenleaf University
reelliott@verizon.net

 

[Deacon]

Deacon, That was truly remarkable reading and I think that I will remember that I read that because of a friends bidding on the BB.

That's really nice of you,
thanks Bart.

Lastly, no one is answering my question. If you believe the many translations of the modern bibles, how does one reconcile the incredible number of inconsistencies found in them when they are reviewed side by side. You say they are the veritable Word of God? How can they be so?
Why didn't God preserve His Word on the triune Godhead in some of the translations? (the standard being not specifically, but idealy "jot and tittle")

Dr. Peter Enns (recent author of Inspiration and Incarnation, Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament) posted an intersting definition of inerrancy in a blog .
This may answer your question.

There are numerous statements on inerrancy floating about, and the last thing the world needs is one more thrown onto the pile.
Still, a word or two seems to be in order.

I affirm that I am committed to the Bible’s inerrancy as a function of its divine origin.
If I may offer a thumbnail definition, the Bible as it is is without error because the Bible as it is is God’s Word.

This is not the type of definition of inerrancy that will satisfy everyone, but it strikes at the heart of the matter for me: my belief in Scripture is rooted in my belief in God, and whatever he has deemed good and right to give us is where any discussion begins. Such a confession does not predispose us to affirm in what way Scripture is without error. Rather, it puts us in a position of reverent expectancy to see what the Spirit will teach us from and about Scripture, to be self-reflective enough to allow the very categories about which we speak of Scripture to be driven by Scripture. Our own frames of reference, however unavoidable and even valuable as they might be, must be trained to take a back seat.

Rob

 

[JustChristian]

Bible Believer,

As far as I've noted, it depends which version of the KJV Bible you are referring to, to my mind the Authorized or 1611 King James Bible is error free as it is the only Bible that is translated (taken from) directly from the Textus Receptus, whereas ALL other Bible versions are translated from Catholic translations of the Textus Receptus, and so are prone to error to varying degrees.

Bible inerrancy means that The Bible's author is in fact the Holy Spirit (Holy Spirit inspired). God only wrote one Bible.

2 Samuel 24:8-10 reads:
So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days. And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah [were] five hundred thousand men. And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

1 Chronicles 21:3-6 reads:
And Joab answered, The LORD make his people an hundred times so many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? why then doth my lord require this thing? why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel?
Nevertheless the king's word prevailed against Joab. Wherefore Joab departed, and went throughout all Israel, and came to Jerusalem. And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.

The reason for the "contradiction" or "inerrancy lies in 1 Chronicles 21:3 and 1 Chronicles 21:6:

Verse 3: And Joab answered, The LORD make his people an hundred times so many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? why then doth my lord require this thing? why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel?

Verse 6:But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them: for the king's word was abominable to Joab.

1 Chronicles 21:3 states that God increased or made His people an hundred time as many more as they be (were), (hence 500 000 as opposed to 800 000)Then 1 Chronicles 21:6 clearly states that two tribes, namely Levi and Benjamin weren't counted (in the census), hence 470 000 as opposed to 500 000.

One has to read entire chapters to put Scripture into it's rightful context, not individual scriptures where the meaning can be taken out of context.

God Bless You,
Audrey

2SA 24:9 The census count was: Israel 800,000 and Judah 500,000.
1CH 21:5 The census count was: Israel 1,100,000 and Judah 470,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version


Do you know that the 1611 Authorized Bible included the Apocrypha?

The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Bible begun in 1604 and first published in 1611 by the Church of England. The Great Bible was the first "authorized version" issued by the Church of England in the reign of King Henry VIII.[2] In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans. The Puritans were a faction within the Church of England.

The king gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. The translation was by 47 scholars, all whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate. Thus, the Authorized Version included the Apocrypha.

http://www.riseisrael.com/apocrypha.htm


Apocrypha of the King James Version

The English-language King James Version of 1611 followed the lead of the Luther Bible in using an inter-testamental section labelled "Books called Apocrypha". It included those books of the Vulgate and the Septuagint which were not in Luther's canon. These are the books which are most frequently referred to by the casual appellation "the Apocrypha". They comprise the following:[7]

* 1 Esdras (Vulgate 3 Esdras)
* 2 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras)
* Tobit
* Judith
* Rest of Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24)
* Wisdom
* Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach)
* Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy (all part of Vulgate Baruch)
* Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90)
* Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13)
* The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14)
* Prayer of Manasses
* 1 Maccabees
* 2 Maccabees

These books are also listed in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England.

So, do you accept the Book of Tobit or the Book of Wisdom as Holy Scripture?

 

[Revmitchell]

There are numerous statements on inerrancy floating about, and the last thing the world needs is one more thrown onto the pile.
Still, a word or two seems to be in order.

I affirm that I am committed to the Bible’s inerrancy as a function of its divine origin.
If I may offer a thumbnail definition, the Bible as it is is without error because the Bible as it is is God’s Word.

This is not the type of definition of inerrancy that will satisfy everyone, but it strikes at the heart of the matter for me: my belief in Scripture is rooted in my belief in God, and whatever he has deemed good and right to give us is where any discussion begins. Such a confession does not predispose us to affirm in what way Scripture is without error. Rather, it puts us in a position of reverent expectancy to see what the Spirit will teach us from and about Scripture, to be self-reflective enough to allow the very categories about which we speak of Scripture to be driven by Scripture. Our own frames of reference, however unavoidable and even valuable as they might be, must be trained to take a back seat.

This is the biggest pile of bunk I have seen in a while. It says nothing about nothing while trying to appear to be something. It is trying to hold to a position while holding to nothing other than some vague personal experience.

 

[Deacon]

This is the biggest pile of bunk I have seen in a while. It says nothing about nothing while trying to appear to be something. It is trying to hold to a position while holding to nothing other than some vague personal experience.

Gosh, Reverend, tell us how you really feel.

This statement of Enns would aptly describe how the apostles and early church fathers felt about the documents that they held as holy.

The translators of the KJV praised the work of those translators that came before them, even calling their works, "the word of God".

I think Enns is right on!

Rob

 

[Revmitchell]

Gosh, Reverend, tell us how you really feel.

This statement of Enns would aptly describe how the apostles and early church fathers felt about the documents that they held as holy.

The translators of the KJV praised the work of those translators that came before them, even calling their works, "the word of God".

I think Enns is right on!

Rob

We will have to agree to disagree. But in case I am wrong tell me what exactly is he holding to here, because it appears he is holding to the inerrancy of his being lead by the Spirit rather than scripture itself.

 

[Deacon]

Rather than trying to explain another’s view, I suggest you examine Peter Enn’s website, A Time to Tear Down/A Time to Build Up, [LINK]

The most popular statement in the poll presented in this thread,
“The original manuscripts of the Bible were inerrant but errors were introduced in transmission/translation”
is fine for those believers who had the originals, but what does inerrancy mean to us today?

Enn’s radical definition of inerrancy actively connects believers, both past and present, to the Scriptures.
His definition engages modern biblical and theological studies and doesn’t resort to platitudes that fall short of the mark.

He notes:

I would certainly expect some to object that such a “minimalist” definition of inerrancy leaves the Bible open to what I want to find there. I feel the opposite is the case, and I hope my points below will dissuade such a conclusion. I might also add that any definition of inerrancy, even the strictest ones, ultimately runs into the same problem, that of conforming the Holy text to our own notions rather than the other way around.
So, I believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, existing as they do by God’s design and at his pleasure, are precisely what he intended for his people to have, and are therefore the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

Some people like their theology simple; Peter Enn’s writes for the exceptions.
Expect to be stretched, don’t expect an easy read.

He provides plenty of fodder for those interested in wading through it for kindling to flame.

Rob

 

[SBCPreacher]

the Authorized or 1611 King James Bible

I'd still like to know what I asked a few pages earlier...
"Authorized by who? God, or the Pagan King James? It tells you somewhere around the title page."
I guess I won't get an answer from Goldie.

 

[PK]

I'd still like to know what I asked a few pages earlier...
"Authorized by who? God, or the Pagan King James? It tells you somewhere around the title page."
I guess I won't get an answer from Goldie.

Since I obviously am not very learned on this subject I just have one question...

Did God promise to preserve every word or just His main themes or thoughts? If He did, can you direct me to the Bible that has every word of the "originals" and if He did not, what has been lost in the translations that I am missing out on? What will God hold me accountable for that I have not been able to read in my Bible?

Thanks...

 

[Deacon]

God doesn't hold you accountable for what you read but will hold you accountable for how you act upon what you have read!

Rob

 

[PK]

God doesn't hold you accountable for what you read but will hold you accountable for how you act upon what you have read!

Rob

Are you sure? Your making this judgement based upon the incomplete scriptures that you have, right?
If human error is peoples hang up then how are we to know for sure "The Originals" didn't have human errors? After all the second tablets of "The Ten Commandments" could be full of errors because the originals were destroyed, right?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

To those of you who are KJV only people and believe that version is without error. What do you mean by it. Why did the original KJV have the apochrypha but modern copies do not? What do you mean by inerrant? I believe the bible is inerrant but my definition may not be what yours is. When I read scriptures I don't take it all literally many things I do and others I do not especially if it says it's a story. I do not read it without consideration for what the culture and situation of the people of the time it was writen. The NT book of Jude quotes from 1 Enoch which many would find strange if you read it. It is clearly evident that the writers of the NT took seriously the Apocryphal writings as well as Jewish apocalyptic literature of their day. Enough to quote from it. Jesus was an itenerant rabbi and was carring on Oral Tradition that the Jews did of his day His difference in explaining Torah was that he interpreted it himself and was not reliant on other rabbis. The bible is also an example of progressive revelation. God dealt with Noah differently than Abraham and Abraham differently than David. None of them, until Jesus, understood the entire revelation. But God spoke to them in a way they understood.

 

[Deacon]

Are you sure? Your making this judgement based upon the incomplete scriptures that you have, right?
If human error is peoples hang up then how are we to know for sure "The Originals" didn't have human errors? After all the second tablets of "The Ten Commandments" could be full of errors because the originals were destroyed, right?

After you've perfected what you're sure about, get back to us, okay?

In the meantime:

A new monk arrived at the monastery. He was assigned to help the other monks in copying the old texts by hand.
He noticed, however,that they were copying copies, not the original books. The new monk went to the head monk to ask him about this.
He pointed out that if there were an error in the first copy, that error would be continued in all of the other copies.
The head monk said, 'We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son.'
The head monk went down into the cellar with one of the copies to check it against the original.

Hours later, nobody had seen him, so one of the monks went downstairs to look for him.
He heard a sobbing coming from the back of the cellar and found the old monk leaning over one of the original books, crying.

Weeping loudly, in deep anguish, the head monk sobbed,
"We dropped an "R"
The word is 'celebrate,' not 'celebate'."

Rob

 

[PK]

Since I obviously am not very learned on this subject I just have one question...

Did God promise to preserve every word or just His main themes or thoughts? If He did, can you direct me to the Bible that has every word of the "originals" and if He did not, what has been lost in the translations that I am missing out on? What will God hold me accountable for that I have not been able to read in my Bible?

Thanks...

I am still looking for an answer....

 

[PK]

Are you sure? Your making this judgement based upon the incomplete scriptures that you have, right?
If human error is peoples hang up then how are we to know for sure "The Originals" didn't have human errors? After all the second tablets of "The Ten Commandments" could be full of errors because the originals were destroyed, right?

How do you (Deacon,SBCPreacher) know that since the originals were hand written by man that there is not errors in these also?