What is Biblical Inerrancy?

[Deacon]

It's called faith in God and his word, PK.

The Bible as it is, is God’s Word
Those that have ears, let them hear.

The Bible was designed to be translated into the language of the people.

The Apostles often used the Septuagint when writing the NT.
In various places, they used variant readings within it to promote and declare the good news of the gospel of Christ.

What are you really worried about?
Do you fear that God’s word has changed?
Jesus says: Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. Matthew 24:35 NRSV

… test everything; hold fast to what is good; abstain from every form of evil.
May the God of peace himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The one who calls you is faithful, and he will do this.
1 Thessalonians 5:21-24 NRSV

The alternative, as you point out, is hopelessness and fear.

Rob

 

[SBCPreacher]

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

I'm convinced that the God we serve is fully capable of insuring that His Word was written down exactly how he wanted it written. To me, it's a matter of faith, and my faith is in our all powerful, completely holy God.

 

[PK]

I agree with both you. Let us not forget that God never changes, right? Is He not the Word of the book of John? So what Bible has every, unchanged, exact Word that God penned in the originals through man? You either believe that His "ideas and themes" have been preserved through translations or that every word has been preserved. I am of the latter...(KJB).

 

[Dale-c]

PK, so if you believe only one translation is an exact Xerox copy of the original, why do you believe that the KJV is that version?
What gave the 17th century English translators special authority on the translation of the Bible?

What right do you have to say that they are special? What if I were to say only the geneva Bible is authentic?

You have said yourself

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

So if that is the case, I would not be so dogmatic if I were you.
You seem to be very concerned with the truth of God's word and I think that is great.
But I think you are placing your faith in in something false, that is that the KJV is the only valid translation.
God has preserved His word providentially.

Have you ever read the NASB? Have you ever read the EAV? Or how about even the NKJV?
You are simply going on tradition without any independent study on your own.
You have to hope those who have taught you have done their homework.

Again, I would recommend this book as a good starting point:

http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=44&osCsid=db2874a5c10a6cc4283a5c54b2ff1e28

 

[PK]

PK, so if you believe only one translation is an exact Xerox copy of the original, why do you believe that the KJV is that version?
What gave the 17th century English translators special authority on the translation of the Bible?

What right do you have to say that they are special? What if I were to say only the geneva Bible is authentic?

You have said yourself
So if that is the case, I would not be so dogmatic if I were you.
You seem to be very concerned with the truth of God's word and I think that is great.
But I think you are placing your faith in in something false, that is that the KJV is the only valid translation.
God has preserved His word providentially.

Have you ever read the NASB? Have you ever read the EAV? Or how about even the NKJV?
You are simply going on tradition without any independent study on your own.
You have to hope those who have taught you have done their homework.

Again, I would recommend this book as a good starting point:

Dale-C,

Thanks for the info. I really need some help here!
Do you think that it's just God's main themes or ideas that have been preserved? When I compare the version you have mentioned to each other I get really confused on which one is correct in the translations because they don't correspond to each other? Please give me more info...

 

[Dale-c]

Do you think that it's just God's main themes or ideas that have been preserved?

No, I believe that all of God's word has been preserved. However the exact word structure etc has some variation. I believe that not one doctrine will be lost.
One interesting thing I have found in my study is how often a parrallel passage from one gospel makes it's way into another gospel.
Then often some of the newer versions take a particular passage back to what seems to be the original while leaving those words in the other gospel.
Has God's word been lost either way? I don't think so.

Using proper exgesis and Bible study I think you will come up with all essential doctrines from any good translation.
Of course some translations are intentionally perverted such as the JW bible etc.

Seriously, I think you have the same background as I do or at least similar on this subject.
The more you study the more in are you will be in the way God has preserved His Word.

God bless as you study!

 

[Bartimaeus]

Is it possible that the positions that can be seen here so far are:

1) Those who believe in Total Inerrancy

2) Those who believe in Limited Inerrancy.

Just throwing this out for thought.
I just read B.H. Carroll on the subject of Inspiration. After reading a little of what he said, I wonder about you guys that have been patient enough to stick around and parlay.

Are you saying that the Bible contains the Word of God or that the Bible is the Word of God?

Bartimaeus

 

[Dale-c]

Bart, I think what we are actually discussing is not which level of inerrancy but method of preservation.
The original is all inerrant and in the copies today nothing has been lost.
There are textual variation however.
Just as there are textual variations in the 4 Gospels.

By the way, are you aware that there are a couple of phrases in the KJV that were never in any previous translations?

 

[HankD]

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.

It really doesn't matter the "name" of the Greek translation of the Scriptures of Jesus and the apostles day.

This is important :

Take a KJV NT passage

For instance:

Matthew 13

14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Now compare it to the passage in the KJV OT:

Isaiah 6
9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

Why are the English words not word-for-word exactly the same coming from the same Bible version?

Do you see the significance?

What was wrong (if anything) with the KJV translators?

Why are the passages worded differently?

Same prophet saying the same thing given by the same God but the words are significantly different.

Think about it.

HankD

​

 

[JustChristian]

Is it possible that the positions that can be seen here so far are:

1) Those who believe in Total Inerrancy

2) Those who believe in Limited Inerrancy.

Just throwing this out for thought.
I just read B.H. Carroll on the subject of Inspiration. After reading a little of what he said, I wonder about you guys that have been patient enough to stick around and parlay.

Are you saying that the Bible contains the Word of God or that the Bible is the Word of God?

Bartimaeus

I don't think it can be simplified that much. Total or limited inerrancy of what, the original manuscripts or today's translations? What translation or does that make any difference? Does it make a difference what the basis of that translation is? e.g."Q"

 

[EdSutton]

I don't think it can be simplified that much. Total or limited inerrancy of what, the original manuscripts or today's translations? What translation or does that make any difference? Does it make a difference what the basis of that translation is? e.g."Q"

FTR, no one can make any sort of valid translation of any non-existent "Q" document, no matter what one's "basis" happens to be.

Beyond that, I fully agree with the questions given in this post by BaptistBeliever.

Bartimaeus is attempting to elicit answers that fit his own categories.

At least, that is how it appears to me.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

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.

Welcome to the BB. :thumbs:

But don't run off. Hang around and play.

Ed

 

[HankD]

A few years ago someone on the BB came up with the following:

The autographs are the Word of of God by inspiration.
The apographs are the Word of God by preservation.
The Translations are the Word of God by derivation.

HankD

 

[Dale-c]

Well put Hank, even though you are not the original source.

 

[JustChristian]

Bible Believer,

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.

I can follow your argument about the reduction of the census number for Judah from 500,000 to 470,000 but can't interpret the rest (hence 500,000 as opposed to 800,000). You say that follows from "God increased or made His people an hundred time as many more as they be." I don't see any connection. The number 500,000 is 100 X 50,000 but where is that given?

I ran into this when I looked at David Guzik's commentary on both passages of scripture on the www.blueletterbible.com. There he quotes from Clarke:

(http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-....html#0&*David+Guzik&&Select.x=19&Select.y=15)


ii. The number given in 2 Samuel 24:5-9 is different than the sum arrived at here. “To attempt to reconcile them in every part is lost labour; better at once acknowledge what cannot be successfully denied, that although the original writers of the Old Testament wrote under the influence of the Divine Spirit, yet we are not told that the same influence descended on all copiers of their words, so as absolutely to prevent them from making mistakes.” (Adam Clarke)

Clark is discussed here:

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

He's a Methodist but not exactly a wild-eyed liberal.

 

[Bartimaeus]

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

What site did it come from?

Bartimaeus

Let me qualify what I mean by "appreciate".
1. I appreciate that you provided a page for me to read.
2. I appreciate the information given on the page because I have never read an unmitigated denial of the importance of the KJV by a "scholar".
3. I appreciate the page you provided because it gives me the foundation of belief that you operate from.

I believe he is wrong. He is a puzzle bible expert. He gives his opinion, all the answers as to why the KJV is not important but gives no answer as to where to find the Word. Oh....excuse me, he does say that "other" writings and manuscripts are more correct, but I guess I need him to help me find them. Then I need him to interpret them to me. Then I need him to give me the "sense" of the interpretation. Wow, here we are again, back to priestly scholarship! I don't need a priest. I don't need a scholar. I don't need 32 different (tongue in cheek) bibles to put together and throw them in the hopper and POP! out the hole in the bottom comes the possible Word of God.

I still appreciate you provided that page.
Bartimaeus

 

[Dale-c]

I don't need a priest. I don't need a scholar. I don't need 32 different (tongue in cheek) bibles to put together and throw them in the hopper and POP! out the hole in the bottom comes the possible Word of God.

All you need is a group of Anglican and Puritan paedobaptist scholars to to tell you what the Word of God is.

You are placing all of your faith in the transmission of the Bible in the hands of one group that denied many of the beliefs you hold dear.

You are placing divine inspiration on the translation without providing any authority for that inspiration.

Why is the KJV inspired and the NASB uninspired?
Why is all authority to translate the Bible given to the King James of England?

Also, please tell me which revision of the KJV is THE Bible.

Do you use the 1611? Or did the real bible come later?

 

[Dale-c]

I might add that the KJV only issue is not a belief derived from truth and study but from traditionalism.

KJVo proponents of today would have been the resistors of the KJV when it was written.
It is the very people who refuse any other translation today who would be with the ones calling an early revision of the KJV the "Evil Bible"


There is no love of truth in the KJV Only position but only love of tradition.

 

[Askjo]

Again, I would recommend this book as a good starting point:http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=44&osCsid=db2874a5c10 a6cc4283a5c54b2ff1e28

Oh No!
No thank you!

 

[Ed Edwards]

Bad post! Post: go ByeBye