• 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!

What is Biblical Inerrancy?

What does Biblical Inerrancy mean to you?

  • No current Bible translation contains any errors

    Votes: 1 2.1%

  • Current Bible translations are inerrant in message but contain some factural errors

    Votes: 2 4.3%

  • The original manuscripts of the Bible were inerrant but errors were introduced in translation

    Votes: 34 72.3%

  • The original manuscripts of the Bible were inerrant in message but contained some factual errors

    Votes: 3 6.4%

  • There are no differences between different versions of the Bible

    Votes: 1 2.1%

  • Only the King James translation of the Bible is without error

    Votes: 5 10.6%

  • Only the King James translation is inerrant in message but it does contain factural errors

    Votes: 1 2.1%
  • Total voters
    47
E

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
Dale-C said:
Again, I would recommend this book as a good starting point:

http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=44&osCsid=db2874a5c10
Click to expand...

Amen, Brother Dale-C, this is a very excellent read as well as an excellent reference resource. It is real easy to check a specific verse and see if it is mentioned in the book.

Contrast with IN AWE OF THY WORD in which you can't find any verse unless you write your own key. Also AWE has many things that are incorrect and/or deceptive.

I recommend without hesitation:

THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY (Bethany House, 1995)

(see hot link above.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Askjo said:
Oh No!
No thank you!
Click to expand...

IOW, Asko is thinking :"I don't want to face facts.I don't want to encounter objective truths which would derail my pet theory of KJV-onlyism. I am much more comfortable with hiding my head under the sand and ignoring all who would try and show me the errors of my ways."
 
A

Askjo

New Member
Rippon said:
IOW, Asko is thinking :"I don't want to face facts.I don't want to encounter objective truths which would derail my pet theory of KJV-onlyism. I am much more comfortable with hiding my head under the sand and ignoring all who would try and show me the errors of my ways."
Click to expand...
Well, you ignore the factual evidences.

What bothers me mostly is that I found these evidences between James White and a challenger. I looked for them in James's website and found NONE. This challenger questioned him concerning his assertion in his book. Where is JRW's answer to him? NONE!
 
R

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Askjo said:
Well, you ignore the factual evidences.

Rip : Such as ?

What bothers me mostly is that I found these evidences between James White and a challenger. I looked for them in James's website and found NONE. This challenger questioned him concerning his assertion in his book. Where is JRW's answer to him? NONE!
Click to expand...

You are not being specific. What in particular are you referencing? What 'assertion' are you talking about? White covers a lot of ground. You need to be explicit.
 
E

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
The heavyweight boxing champ of the world only fights one contender per year. The heavyweight boxing champ of the world doesn't fight a hundred 'wanna-be's a day. Neither does James R. White need to beat up on punks everyday.
 
E

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
Rippon said:
You are not being specific. What in particular are you referencing? What 'assertion' are you talking about? White covers a lot of ground. You need to be explicit.
Click to expand...

Hot links are also nice.
 
B

Bartimaeus

New Member
Dale-c said:
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?
Click to expand...

Dale,
Up to this point in time we have had a discussion that has been reletively poised and mundane. But now.....Wow! I must have hit a blue spot on your arm or something. Maybe your meal at supper didn't fit your "small portions all the time" pattern or something.

Let's go to the beginning of your quote. Which of all these things that you have addressed have been issues that I have specifically stated and which of these issues are you attributing to my belief based upon what others may believe?

Would you like to repost and ask me questions that are specifically related to my statements and also related to exactly what you know that I specifically believe?

I'll give you a second chance brother.

Bartimaeus
 
P

PK

New Member
Most of us here on the board are teachers, pastors, preachers, or evangelist; and do we or do we not believe that God will hold us accountable for what we teach or preach? That is the reason why most of you will say, "we must always go back to the originals to make sure we are interpreting the passage correctly," right?

So why do you use anything other than the originals?
 
Thinkingstuff

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
PK said:
Most of us here on the board are teachers, pastors, preachers, or evangelist; and do we or do we not believe that God will hold us accountable for what we teach or preach? That is the reason why most of you will say, "we must always go back to the orginals to make sure we are interpreting the passage correctly," right?

So why do you use anything other than the originals?
Click to expand...

Originals are no longer exant. They haven't been exant for mellenia. By the way I'm not really any of the above. I just love God and his word.
 
B

Bartimaeus

New Member
Thinkingstuff said:
Originals are no longer exant. They haven't been exant for mellenia. By the way I'm not really any of the above. I just love God and his word.
Click to expand...

Do you mean His Word or His thoughts and ideas?
Interesting that you would say that.

Bartimaeus
 
E

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
Bartimaeus said:
Do you mean His Word or His thoughts and ideas?
Interesting that you would say that.

Bartimaeus
Click to expand...

IMVHO:
His Word (written) = His thoughts and ideas.

So if I were asked:
Do you mean His Word or His thoughts and ideas?
Then I'd say:
YES.
 
P

PK

New Member
Thinkingstuff said:
Originals are no longer exant. They haven't been exant for mellenia. By the way I'm not really any of the above. I just love God and his word.
Click to expand...

You love God and what you think is His Word?
 
P

PK

New Member
Why is it that God tells me that I will be judge for every word that I have spoken? Are these preserved for all eternity so that I can give an account for them? Why would God preserve my exact words but not His?

Mat 12:37
KJV - For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
NKJV - "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."
NLT - The words you say now reflect your fate then; either you will be justified by them or you will be condemned."
NIV - For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”
ESV - “for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
NASB - "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."
RSV - "for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."
ASV - For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Young - 'for from thy words thou shalt be declared righteous, and from thy words thou shalt be declared unrighteous.'
Darby - for by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Webster - For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
HNV - "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."
 
B

Bartimaeus

New Member
Ed Edwards said:
IMVHO:
His Word (written) = His thoughts and ideas.

So if I were asked:
Do you mean His Word or His thoughts and ideas?
Then I'd say:
YES.
Click to expand...

Bro Ed,
The Lord Jesus did not communicate in thoughts and ideas, He communicated by words. He did not say,"My thoughts and ideas will not pass away..."
To make the jump from specific word to thoughts and idea leaves room for speculation. That is why He used the words "jot and tittle". They are smaller than words. They are "letter" and "mark". He made it more precise. Thought and idea "wallows" out the hole that the puzzle bible people like to have.

BTW I have always appreciated your humor here on the board. You get my vote for being the best dry humor comedian.

Bartimaeus
 
A

Askjo

New Member
Bartimaeus said:
Bro Ed,
The Lord Jesus did not communicate in thoughts and ideas, He communicated by words. He did not say,"My thoughts and ideas will not pass away..."
To make the jump from specific word to thoughts and idea leaves room for speculation. That is why He used the words "jot and tittle". They are smaller than words. They are "letter" and "mark". He made it more precise. Thought and idea "wallows" out the hole that the puzzle bible people like to have.

BTW I have always appreciated your humor here on the board. You get my vote for being the best dry humor comedian.

Bartimaeus
Click to expand...
Amen! You are right. :thumbs:
 
R

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
PK said:
Why is it that God tells me that I will be judge for every word that I have spoken? Are these preserved for all eternity so that I can give an account for them? Why would God preserve my exact words but not His?
[ quote ]

The KJV you hold in your hands does not reflect God's 'exact words' PK.You know that the Lord did not speak in the English language while on earth, don't you?You are aware that the KJV-style of English is not the only God-honoring form of English that a Bible needs to have to actually be the Word of God -- don't you?

The 1395 Wycliffe Bible had "shalt be dampned" at the close of Matthew 12:37.Do you have a problem with that?

The NLTse has :"The words you will say will either acquit you or condemn you." for the entire verse.

The REB has :"For out of your own mouth you will be acquitted; out of your own mouth you will be condemned."
Click to expand...
 
E

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
PK said:
Why is it that God tells me that I will be judge for every word that I have spoken? Are these preserved for all eternity so that I can give an account for them? Why would God preserve my exact words but not His?

Mat 12:37
KJV - For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
NKJV - "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."
NLT - The words you say now reflect your fate then; either you will be justified by them or you will be condemned."
NIV - For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”
ESV - “for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
NASB - "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."
RSV - "for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."
ASV - For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Young - 'for from thy words thou shalt be declared righteous, and from thy words thou shalt be declared unrighteous.'
Darby - for by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Webster - For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
HNV - "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."
Click to expand...

Why do we need all those translations when it was perfectly clear before?

Matthew 12:37 (Tyndale, 14th century)
For by thy wordes thou shalt be iustifyed: and by thy wordes thou shalt be condemned.

Matthew 12:37 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
For by thy wordes thou shalt be iustified, and by thy wordes thou shalt be condemned.

Matthew 12:37 (KJV1611 Edition):
For by thy wordes thou shalt bee iustified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

In English ,WORD = WORDS = expression of thoughts and ideas
 
Thinkingstuff

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
PK said:
You love God and what you think is His Word?
Click to expand...

PK and Bartimaus,

The original writen text of scriptures are No longer exant (in existance). The originals were destroyed many years ago through aging process etc... Have they been faithfully copied? Yes. Do the copies contain errors? They contain transcription errors. (Read Archers book on bible difficulties) Do they faithfully transmit God's word to us? Yes.

To quible about original text is nonsense because none exist to this day. Every piece of scripture that we have is a copy. Even the dead sea scrolls are copies! Now what makes them interesting is that the dead sea scrolls are closer to the originals than what we used to translate all modern english bibles (yes including KJV) What we find is that two thousand years ago the text are not significantly different then what we have now. So the Qumran find indicates that God was faithful in having his word copied and maintained to the present day! We have 2,000 years to review.

So yes I love God's word.
 
B

Bartimaeus

New Member
Thinkingstuff said:
PK and Bartimaus,

The original writen text of scriptures are No longer exant (in existance). The originals were destroyed many years ago through aging process etc...
To quible about original text is nonsense because none exist to this day.

Now what makes them interesting is that the dead sea scrolls are closer to the originals than what we used to translate all modern english bibles (yes including KJV) What we find is that two thousand years ago the text are not significantly different then what we have now.

So yes I love God's word.
Click to expand...

Brother,
First you say we don't have the originals because they are exant. Then, you say the dead sea scrolls are "closer to the originals that we used".....
Very inconsistent. Which way is it? We have them or we don't have them.

Bartimaeus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top